Supreme Court of the United States, 1893

Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 27, 1893 · The Chief Justice:

148 U.S. 389; 13 S. Ct. 602; 37 L. Ed. 493; 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2238 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Robert S. Green and Mr. Henry Thompson for the plaintiff in error., Mr. Herman Kobbe for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

50 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.

Velez v. CAN Trucking Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
Petrucelli v. Palmer (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2009)
Hitchcock v. Woodside Literary Agency (District Court, E.D. New York 1998)
Leveraged Leasing Administration Corp. v. Pacificorp Capital, Inc. (2d Cir. 1996)
Leveraged Leasing Administration Corp. v. PacifiCorp Capital, Inc. (2d Cir. 1996)
Jones v. Wide World of Cars, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1993)
Mas v. Perry (5th Cir. 1974)
Codagnone v. Perrin (District Court, D. Rhode Island 1972)
Angelo Guerrino, Philip Deodati, Dr. A. P. Engemi, Albert J. Guerra, E. B. Fleming Company v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (3d Cir. 1970)
John Birch Society v. National Broadcasting Co. (2d Cir. 1967)
Sheppard v. Cornelius (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 1961)
Kelleam v. Maryland Casualty Co. of Baltimore (10th Cir. 1940)
Davidson v. Rafferty (District Court, E.D. New York 1929)
Stadtmuller v. Miller (2d Cir. 1926)
McEldowney v. Card (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee 1911)
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Frederickson (9th Cir. 1910)
Crosby v. Cuba R. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey 1908)
Koike v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1907)
Corel v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1903)
In re Plotke (7th Cir. 1900)
Littell v. Erie R. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1900)
Espinoza v. Warner Music Group Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2025)
Phoenix Packaging Operations, LLC v. Dahlicious Holdings, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

The Chief Justice :

The complaint in this case avers that the plaintiff was at the several times mentioned therein, “ and ever since has been and still is, a resident of the city, county and State of New York,” but his citizenship is nowhere dis-t closed by the record.

It is essential in cases where the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties that such citizenship, or the facts which in legal intendment constitute it, should be distinctly arid positively averred in the pleadings, or should appear with equal distinctness in other parts of the record. It is not sufficient that jurisdiction may be inferred argumentatively from the averments. Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115; Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237; Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253.

Judgment reversed at the cost of plaintiff in error and the canse remoulded for further proceedings.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.