Hepburn Dundas v. Ellzey
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Citation | 6 U.S. 445,2 Cranch 445,2 L.Ed. 332 |
| Decision Date | 01 February 1805 |
| Parties | HEPBURN and DUNDAS v. ELLZEY |
THIS case came before the court, on a certificate of division of opinion by the judges of the circuit court of the district of Virginia.
The certificate stated, 'in this cause it occurred as a question whether Hepburn and Dundas, the plaintiffs in this cause, who are citizens and residents of the district of Columbia, and are so stated in the pleadings, can maintain an action in this court against the defendant who is a citizen and inhabitant of the commonwealth of Virginia, and is also stated so to be in the pleadings, or whether for want of jurisdiction the said suit ought not to be dismissed.'
[Argument of Counsel from pages 446-451 intentionally omitted]
Page 452
Mr.Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court.
The question in this case is whether the plaintiffs, as residents of the district of Columbia, can maintain an action in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Virginia.
This depends on the act of congress describing the jurisdiction of that court. That act gives jurisdiction to the circuit courts in cases between a citizen of the state in which the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state. To support the jurisdiction in this case, therefore, it must appear that Columbia is a state.
On the part of the plaintiffs it has been urged that Columbia is a distinct political society; and is therefore 'a state' according to the definitions of writers on general law.
This is true. But as the act of congress obviously uses the word 'state' in reference to the term as used in the constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a state in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the constitution.
The house of representatives is to be composed of members chosen by the people of the several states; and each state shall have at least one representative.
The senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state.
Each state shall appoint, for the election of the executive, a number of electors equal to its whole number of senators and representatives.
These clauses show that the word state is used in the constitution as designating a member of the union, and ex-
Page 453
cludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. District of Columbia, No. 04-7041.
...of the union, and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations. Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445, 6 U.S. 445, 452-53, 2 L.Ed. 332 (1805) (emphasis added); see also De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 269, 10 S.Ct. 295, 33 L.Ed. 642 (1890). ......
-
Rieser v. District of Columbia, Nos. 76-1411 and 76-1412
...the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State." 48 The Supreme Court, in Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 445, 452-53, 2 L.Ed. 332 (1805) held that a citizen of the District of Columbia was not a "citizen ( ) of (a) State( )" within the meaning of the diversity statute. 4......
-
Banner v. U.S., No. CIV.A. 03-1587(ESH).
...Court could not grant the District the same benefits enjoyed by the states. See Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 445, 453, 2 L.Ed. 332 (1805). Chief Justice Marshall's sentiments have been reiterated in subsequent Supreme Court decisions, as well as in rulings from courts in th......
-
Castañon v. United States, Civil Action No. 18-2545 Three-Judge Court (RDM, RLW, TNM)
...Downes v. Bidwell , 182 U.S. 244, 251, 21 S.Ct. 770, 45 L.Ed. 1088 (1901) (emphases in original); see also Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey , 6 U.S. 445, 452-53, 2 Cranch 445, 2 L.Ed. 332 (1805) (quoting language from Article I regarding House, Senate, and presidential elections, and concluding, ......
-
Duehay v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 7183.
...220; In re Johnson's Estate, 139 Cal. 532, 540, 73 P. 424, 427, 96 Am.St.Rep. 161. See Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch. 445, 452, 2 L.Ed. 332; Baltimore & O. Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65, 86, 20 L.Ed. 354; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 259, 21 S.Ct. 770, 45 L.Ed. 1088; Hooe v......
-
Milhouse v. Levi, No. 75-1844
...States." Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 395, 93 S.Ct. 1670, 1675, 36 L.Ed.2d 342 (1973) citing Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, 2 L.Ed. 332 (1805). Thus, provisions of the District of Columbia Code are not state statutes for purposes of appealing to the Supreme Court pursuant to 2......
-
Parker v. District of Columbia, No. 04-7041.
...of the union, and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations. Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445, 6 U.S. 445, 452-53, 2 L.Ed. 332 (1805) (emphasis added); see also De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 269, 10 S.Ct. 295, 33 L.Ed. 642 (1890). ......
-
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens For the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc, No. 90-906
...Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. 1. The District of Columbia, of course, is not a State under the Constitution. See, e.g., Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445, 452-453, 2 L.Ed. 332 (1805). Nonetheless, neither respondents nor the Court of Appeals contend that the Airports Authority is a federal en......