Supreme Court of the United States, 1894

Horne v. George H. Hammond Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 17, 1894 · The Chief Justice:

155 U.S. 393; 15 S. Ct. 167; 39 L. Ed. 197; 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2283 (United States Reports)

Counsel

■Mr. Eugene P. (Jarver, (with whom was Mr. Robert M. Morse on the brief,) for plaintiff in error., Mr. George Putnam, for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

Meltzer v. Continental Insurance (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2001)
Foreman v. Mesirow (5th Cir. 1948)
Babe v. Danaher (2d Cir. 1932)
Woods v. First Nat. Bank of Albuquerque, N. M. (9th Cir. 1926)
Norton v. Larney (8th Cir. 1923)
Columbia Digger Co. v. Rector (District Court, W.D. Washington 1914)
McEldowney v. Card (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee 1911)
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)
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Prunty (5th Cir. 1904)
Littell v. Erie R. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1900)
Tug River, Coal & Salt Co. v. Brigel (6th Cir. 1895)
Tysko v. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. (9th Cir. 1936)
Kennedy v. Kennedy (Mo. Ct. App. 1930)
Norton v. Larney (Supreme Court of the United States 1925)
Atchison, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. Gilliland (9th Cir. 1912)
Sun Printing and Publishing Assn. v. Edwards (Supreme Court of the United States 1904)
Mexican Central Railway Co. v. Duthie (Supreme Court of the United States 1903)
Marks v. Marks (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee 1896)
Bishop v. Averill (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington 1896)
Stuart v. Easton (Supreme Court of the United States 1895)
Swan v. Hill (Supreme Court of the United States 1894)

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 title of this cause describes plaintiff in error as “of Chelsea in said district,” and the decedent as “ late of Chelsea,” and the defendant as “ a corporation organized. under the laws of the State of Michigan.” The writ and the original declaration do not appear in the record. The amended declaration commences thus: “ Plaintiff says that she is the widow of the late Granville P. Horne of Chelsea, Suffolk County, Comtaonwealth of Massachusetts, and that she was duly appointed by the probate court of Suffolk County administratrix of his estate.”

As the transcript of the record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of ..the suit, which depended upon the citizenship of the parties, and as counsel, upon having their attention called to the matter, have furnished nothing of record which would Supply the defect, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Rob *394 ertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 649; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, 702; Timmons v. Elyton Land Co., 139 U. S. 378 ; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121.

Reversed a/nd ordered accordingly.

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