Amory v. Amory Same v. Same
| Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
| Citation | 95 U.S. 186,24 L.Ed. 428 |
| Parties | AMORY v. AMORY. SAME v. SAME |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Superior Court of the city of New York.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. W. T. Birdsall and Mr. W. R. Beebe for the plaintiff in error.
The court declined to hear Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter for the defendants in error.
These cases are substantially disposed of by the decision in Insurance Company v. Pechner, supra, p. 183. They each present the question of the sufficiency of a petition for removal under the act of March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 558. The suits were in New York by the defendants in error as executors, against the plaintiff in error, a citizen of New Jersey. The petitions for removal set forth sufficiently the citizenship of the plaintiff in error, but as to the defendants in error the allegation are 'that said plaintiffs, as such executors, are citizens of the State of New York.' Clearly this is not sufficient. Where the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States depends upon the citizenship of the parties, it has reference to the parties as persons. A petition for removal must, therefore, state the personal citizenship of the parties, and not their official citizenship, if there can be such a thing. From the language here employed, the court may properly infer that, as persons, the plaintiffs in error were not citizens of New York. For all that appears, they may have been citizens of New Jersey, as was the defendant. Holding, as we do, that a State court is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction upon a petition for removal until at least a petition is filed, which, upon its face, shows the right of the petitioner to the trans er, it was not error for the court to retain these causes. We need not, therefore, consider whether the act of 1867 limits the right of removal to the citizenship of the parties at the time of the commencement of the suit, or whether the State court had the right to call upon the defendants in error to show cause against the application.
Judgments affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Sperling
...Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 1886, 119 U.S. 237, 7 S.Ct. 193, 30 L.Ed. 380; Blake v. McKim, 1880, 103 U.S. 336, 26 L.Ed. 563; Amory v. Amory, 1877, 95 U.S. 186, 24 L.Ed. 428; Rice v. Houston, Adm'r, 1871, 13 Wall. 66, 80 U.S. 66, 21 L.Ed. 484; cf. Jeffcott v. Donovan, 9 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d Subject ......
-
McEldowney v. Card
...the trustee, as the plaintiff of record and the defendants (Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172, 175, 20 L.Ed. 179; Amory v. Amory, 95 U.S. 186, 24 L.Ed. 428; Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U.S. 237, Sup.Ct. 193, 30 L.Ed. 380; Spencer v. Silk Co., supra, 191 U.S. 527, 24 Sup.Ct. 174, ......
-
State v. American Surety Co. of New York
...court is not ousted and its subsequent proceedings are valid. ( Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Pechner, 95 U.S. 183, 24 L.Ed. 427; Amory v. Amory, 95 U.S. 186, 24 L.Ed. 428; Gregory v. Hartley, 113 U.S. 742, 5 S.Ct. 743, 28 L.Ed. 1150; Stone v. State of Carolina, 117 U.S. 430, 6 S.Ct. 799, 29 L.Ed. 96......
-
Morbeck v. Bradford-Kennedy Co.
... ... 4360 and 4140 of the Rev. Codes, and that the same is not ... void for want of jurisdiction ... 2 ... ID.-Where ... order the removal. (Amory v. Amory, 95 U.S. 186, 24 ... L.Ed. 428; Stone v. South Carolina, 117 ... ...