Hepburn Dundas v. Ellzey
| Decision Date | 01 February 1805 |
| Citation | 6 U.S. 445,2 Cranch 445,2 L.Ed. 332 |
| Parties | HEPBURN and DUNDAS v. ELLZEY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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] 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- cludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations. When the same term, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castañon v. United States, Civil Action No. 18-2545 Three-Judge Court (RDM, RLW, TNM)
...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, "These ......
-
National Mut Ins Co of District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co Inc
...the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall answered in the negative, by way of dicta if not of actual decision. Hepburn and Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445, 2 L.Ed. 332. To be sure, nothing was before that Court except interpretation of a statute15 which conferred jurisdiction substantially in th......
-
Duehay v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...204 N.C. 646, 169 S.E. 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......
-
Palmore v. United States 8212 11
...the boundaries of the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is constitutionally distinct from the States, Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445, 2 L.Ed. 332 (1805); cf. National Mutual Ins. Co. of Dist. of Col. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 69 S.Ct. 1173, 93 L.Ed. 155......
-
WHAT IS A "STATE"? THE INCONSISTENT CONSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES.
...141 S. Ct. 2190, 2200 (2021). (41) U.S. CONST. art. III, [section] 2, cl. 1. (42) 28 U.S.C. [section] 1332. (43) Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (44) Id. at 445, 452-53. (45) Id. at 452-53. (46) See, e.g., O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 543 (1933) (citizen of District of Columbia)......
-
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND THE COMMON-LAW SCOPE OF THE CIVIL ACTION.
...in the record" as a citizen of Kentucky and as a citizen of the Mississippi territory. See id. at 92. (75.) Hepburn & Dundas v. Elizey, 6 U.S. 445,452-53 (1805). Congress in 1940 enacted a statute that included citizens of the District of Columbia within the scope of diversity jurisdict......