C. H. NICHOLS LUMBER CO. V. FRANSON
| Decision Date | 03 December 1906 |
| Citation | 203 U. S. 278 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
A declaration that plaintiff is a resident of a state of the Union and a citizen of a foreign country under a monarchical form of government is sufficient to show the meaning of the pleader and the nationality of the plaintiff, and there is no merit in an objection to the jurisdiction of the circuit court, diverse citizenship existing, because plaintiff was not a citizen, but a subject of the foreign power.
While under the Judiciary Act of 1891, in case of direct review on question of jurisdiction, when the record does not otherwise show how the question was raised, the certificate of the Circuit Court may be considered for the purpose of supplying such deficiency, when the elements necessary to decide the question are in the record, the better practice, in every case of direct review on question of jurisdiction, is to make apparent on the record by a bill of exceptions or other appropriate mode the fact that the question of jurisdiction was raised and passed on, and also the elements upon which the question was decided.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
A motion has been made to dismiss the writ of error, among others, on the ground of the absence of a bill of exceptions, and the character of the order appealed from. We pass to the merits of the case without stopping to review the grounds of the motion, as we think they will be substantially disposed of by the views which we shall hereafter express.
By this writ of error, the C. H. Nichols Lumber Company seeks the reversal of a judgment obtained by Charles Franson in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington. Considering the record alone, and putting out of view for the moment the effect of statements contained in a certificate made by the court below on the allowance of the writ of error, the case is this: the action was brought to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained while in the employ of the defendant. The jurisdiction of the court below was invoked solely upon the ground of diversity of citizenship, it being alleged in the first paragraph of the complaint that the defendant was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington and doing business in the State of Washington and that the plaintiff was at the time of the filing of the complaint, and had been for more than a year prior thereto, "a resident of Washington and a citizen of Sweden." Admitting its incorporation, and that it was doing business in the State of Washington, the defendant, by its answer, specifically denied each and every other allegation of the first as well as other specified paragraphs of the complaint.
The cause was tried to a jury, and, after verdict and remittitur of a portion thereof, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff. The record does not contain a bill of exceptions, and in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, it is stated that none was prepared.
This writ of error, upon the ground solely of a want of jurisdiction in the trial court, was prayed and allowed, and a
formal certificate was made by the judge, reciting to the time when and how the question of jurisdiction was raised and decided, accompanied with a statement of the pleadings and of the court's impression of certain testimony given at the trial by the plaintiff, deemed by the court pertinent to the elucidation of the question of jurisdiction. The certificate concludes with the statement of enumerated "questions of jurisdiction," which the court was of opinion arose for decision, all of them being based upon the overruling by the court of a motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction, which motion, it is recited in the certificate, was made between verdict and judgment. And the only ground here assigned as error is predicated upon the action of the court in denying such motion to dismiss.
As the circuit court was without power to make a certificate containing a statement of facts as the basis for legal propositions upon which it desired the guidance of this Court, Mexican Central Ry. Co. v. Eckman, 187 U. S. 432; United States v. Rider, 163 U. S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Engstrom v. Hornseth
...of the Republic of Switzerland who resided in New Orleans and citizens of the State of Louisiana); C.H. Nichols Lumber Co. v. Franson, 203 U.S. 278, 27 S.Ct. 102, 51 L.Ed. 181 (1906) (alienage jurisdiction existed over suit between subject of the Kingdom of Sweden who resided in Washington ......
-
Sadat v. Mertes
...under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) even when he sues an American citizen residing in the same state. See C. H. Nichols Lumber Co. v. Franson, 203 U.S. 278, 27 S.Ct. 102, 51 L.Ed. 181 (1906); Breedlove v. Nicolet, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 413, 431-32, 8 L.Ed. 731 (1833); Psinakis v. Psinakis, 221 F.2d 418......
-
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stephens
... ... Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 195 U.S. 207, 211, 25 ... Sup.Ct. 24, 49 L.Ed. 160; Nichols Lumber Co. v ... Franson, 203 U.S. 278, 282, 27 Sup.Ct. 102, 51 L.Ed ... 181; Chi., B. & Q ... ...
-
Ward v. Morrow
...S. 379, 4 S. Ct. 510, 28 L. Ed. 462; Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 195 U. S. 207, 25 S. Ct. 24, 49 L. Ed. 160; Lumber Co. v. Franson, 203 U. S. 278, 27 S. Ct. 102, 51 L. Ed. 181; Railway Co. v. Willard, 220 U. S. 413, 31 S. Ct. 460, 55 L. Ed. In case this court finds, as it has, that the div......