Cameron v. Hodges

Decision Date30 April 1888
Citation8 S.Ct. 1154,32 L.Ed. 132,127 U.S. 322
PartiesCAMERON et al. v. HODGES et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This is an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Tennessee. The suit was originally brought in the chancery court of Shelby county, held in the city of Memphis, in that state, in regard to a controversy which arose concerning the title to certain real estate situated in the state of Arkansas. The principal defendant, Asa Hodges, was a citizen of Arkansas, and upon that ground procured an order in the chancery court to remove the case into the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Tennessee. The allegation upon which this removal was made is as follows 'In the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee. Anna E. Cameron et al. vs. Asa Hodges et al. R. 4593. To the Hon. W. W. McDowell, Chancellor: Your petitioner states that he is, and at the time of the institution of this suit was, a citizen of the state of Arkansas and not of the state of Tennessee, and that none of the complainants are or were at that time citizens of the state of Arkansas; that said suit is of a civil nature, and the matters in controversy exceed, exclusive of costs, in value the sum of five hundred dollars; that the controversy affects the ownership of real estate in said state of Arkansas, and can be wholly decided between complainants and this defendant. Wherefore he prays an order for the removal of said cause from this court to the United States circuit court for the Western district of Tennessee, at Memphis, and he tenders herewith the requisite bond, as required by law, for the removal thereof. Asa Hodges, the petitioner, being sworn, says the matters set forth in the above petition are true as far as stated on his own knowledge; the rest he believes to be true. ASA HODGES. Sworn to this October 2, 1882. J. M. BRADLEY, Deputy Clerk and M.'

D. H. & W. K. Poston, for appellants.

T. B. Turley, W. G. Weatherford, and J. B. Heiskell, for appellees.

MILLER, J.

While this petition sets forth the citizenship of Hodges to be in the state of Arkansas. both at the commencement of the suit and at the time of the application for removal, it does not state that of any of the complainants, but merely says 'that none of the complainants are or were at that time citizens of said state of Arkansas,' nor have we been able to find in the recod any evidence, allegation, or statement as to the citizenship of any of them. That the defendant Hodges was a citizen of Arkansas, in connection with the fact that none of the complainants were citizens of that state, is not sufficient to give jurisdiction in a circuit court of the United States. Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 115. The adverse party must be a citizen of some other named state than Arkansas, or an alien. All the complainants might be residents and citizens of the District of Columbia, or of any territory, and they might not be citizens of the state of Tennessee, where the suit was brought, or, indeed, of any state in the Union. A citizen of a territory, or of the District of Columbia, can neither bring nor sustain a suit on the ground of citizenship in one of the circuit courts. Barney v. Baltimore City, 6 Wall. 280. This court has always been very particular in requiring a distinct statement of the citizenship of the parties, and of the particular state in which it is claimed, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
135 cases
  • State of New Jersey v. Moriarity
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • March 31, 1967
    ...and if there are significant doubts about its propriety, those doubts must be resolved against removal. Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322, 8 S.Ct. 1154, 32 L.Ed. 132 (1888); John Hancock Mut. Life Insurance Co. v. United Office & Professional Workers of America, 93 F. Supp. 296 (D.N.J., 1950)......
  • City of Greenwood v. Humphrey & Co., Inc
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1938
    ... ... 4 ... Hughes Federal Practice, sec. 2674; Ayres v ... Wiswall, 112 U.S. 187, 28 L.Ed. 693, 5 S.Ct. 90; ... Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322, 32 L.Ed. 132, 8 ... S.Ct. 1154; Nashua & L. R. Corp. v. Boston & L. R ... Corp., 136. U.S. 356, 34 L.Ed. 363, 10 S.Ct ... ...
  • Holman v. Carpenter Technology Corp., Civ. A. No. 79-2623.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • January 24, 1980
    ...v. McCloskey & Co., 342 F.2d 495, 497 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 823, 86 S.Ct. 52, 315 L.Ed.2d 68 (1965). See also Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322, 325 (1888) and Piquignot v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 104, 105, 14 L.Ed. 863 (1834). In other words, plaintiff must affir......
  • Faulk v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 1:99CV180 (TH).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • May 26, 1999
    ... ... In re Marriage of Smith, 549 F.Supp. 761 (W.D.Tex.1982); Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322, 8 S.Ct. 1154, 32 L.Ed. 132 (1888); ... Page 659 ... State of New Jersey v. Moriarity, 268 F.Supp. 546, 554 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT