Chtistian Breithaupt, and Henry Shultz, Defendants Below v. the Bank of the State of Georgia, and Others

• Decision Date: 01 January 1828
• Citation: 26 U.S. 238,7 L.Ed. 127,1 Pet. 238
• Parties: CHTISTIAN BREITHAUPT, AND HENRY SHULTZ, DEFENDANTS BELOW, v. THE BANK OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, AND OTHERS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

26 U.S. 238

1 Pet. 238

7 L.Ed. 127

CHTISTIAN BREITHAUPT, AND HENRY SHULTZ, DEFENDANTS BELOW, v. THE BANK OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, AND OTHERS.

January Term, 1828

THIS was a bill, filed in the Circuit Court, for the district of Georgia, and the case came up, on a certificate of a division of opinion, which the judges ordered to be entered upon these points.——

First, whether the complainants are entitled to relief?

Secondly, what relief should be decreed to them?

The only question presented for the decision of this Court, was, whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the cause. It was alleged, there is no sufficient averment on the record, of the citizenship of the parties.

The complainants, Henry Shultz, and Christian Breithaupt, are stated to be citizens of the state of South Carolina. The defendant, The Bank of the State of Georgia, is a body corporate; but the citizenship of the individual corporators is not stated. The averment, in the original bill, is, that 'William B. Bullock, and Samuel Hale, are citizens of Georgia, residents therein.' William B. Bullock is subsequently designated, as 'President of the Mother Bank, and Samuel Hale, as President of the Branch Bank at Augusta, in the state of Georgia.' There are three amendments to the bill, but there is, in none of them, any further averments. The answer denies the jurisdistion.

The defendant's counsel insisted, that the citizenship of the individual corporators should have been alleged; and that the want of jurisdiction is apparent upon the face of the record.

Mr. M'Duffie, in support of the jurisdiction of the Court, contended, that the objection to the jurisdiction was founded on a misapprehension of the decisions of this Court. None of those decisions go further than to say, that if, on the face of the record, it appears that there are parties, who are not citizens of another state, the Courts of the United States will not accept jurisdiction.

In the bill, the complainants are said to be citizens of South Carolina; and William B. Bullock, the President of the Mother Bank, and Samuel Hale, the President of the Branch Bank, are citizens of the state of Georgia; and there is no ground for the allegation, that other persons, not citizens of the state, are interested. The party who claims the jurisdiction, is not bound to prove that no other persons, but citizens of Georgia, are interested.

The Bank exists under an Act of Incorporation, passed by the state of Georgia, and this Court will look at the Act; which having a general operation, may be considered as a public Act. 1 Black. Com. 85. If this is done by the Court, they cannot say others than citizens of Georgia, are members of the Corporation. Cases cited, in which the question of jurisdiction has been examined: 3 Dal. 382, Cabot vs. Bingham. 5 Cranch, 57. 3 Cranch, 267. 3 Wheat. 591.

The policy of the Constitution, in relation to jurisdiction, is to include suits against corporations, although all who are interested,...