James Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Company
Decision Date | 23 March 1903 |
Docket Number | No. 203,203 |
Citation | 47 L.Ed. 697,23 S.Ct. 532,189 U.S. 25 |
Parties | JAMES HENNESSY, Maurice Hennessy, Armand Castellon, and Emanuel Castaigne, Appts. , v. RICHARDSON DRUG COMPANY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Adolph L. Pincoffs, James L. Hopkins, and Richard S. Horton for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 25-31 intentionally omitted] Mr.Charles F. Tuttle for appellee.
This was a bill alleging that complainants were 'all of Cog- nac in France, and citizens of the Republic of France,' and that defendant was a citizen of Nebraska, and a resident of the judicial district thereof; that complainants owned and employed a certain trademark for Hennessy brandy (which they produced, bottled, and sold), of a value exceeding $2,000, which trademark had been properly registered in the Patent Office under the act of Congress of March 3, 1881 [21 Stat. at L. 502, chap. 138, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3401]; and that defendant was selling an imitation 'Hennessy brandy,' using facsimiles of complainants' trade name, devices, and labels. Injunction, profits, and damages were prayed for.
The case was brought to issue, heard on pleadings and proofs, and dismissed, it being held that the court had no jurisdiction, because 'complainants' citizenship or alienage is not alleged, as required;' and also that the case was with defendant on the merits.
The decree stated, among other things: the bill was dismissed.
The court then granted a certificate in these words:
An appeal was taken directly to this court under the first of the classes of cases enumerated in § 5 of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891 ( ), and we are shut up to the consideration of the question of jurisdiction alone. We do not understand that the amount in controversy was treated below as having any bearing in respect of that question. The act of March 3, 1881, provides for jurisdiction 'without regard to the amount in controversy,' and the averment here was that the value of the trademark exceeded $2,000. The point, however, was not relied on, and we confine ourselves to the question of jurisdiction as dependent on citizenship.
By the Constitution the judicial power of the United States extends to controversies between citizens of a state 'and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.' And by statute, circuit courts of the United States have original cognizance of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, in which there is 'a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.' 25 Stat. at L. 433, chap. 866.1
In Stuart v. Easton, 156 U. S. 46, 39 L. ed. 341, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 268, it was held that by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clarence Venner v. Great Northern Railway Company
......CLARENCE H. VENNER, Appt.,. v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and James J. Hill. No. 485. Submitted January 20, 1908. . Decided February 24, 1908. ...v. Eckman, 187 U. S. 429, 47 L. ed. 245, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 211; Hennessy v. . Page 31 . Richardson Drug Co. 189 U. S. 25, 47 L. ed. 697, 23 Sup. ......
-
McComb v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court in and for Elko County
......J. Weber, of Salt Lake City, Utah, and James Dysart and R. C. Van Fleet, both of Elko, for petitioner. ... not naturalized. Hennessy v. . [136 P. 572.] . . Richardson,. ......
-
Blair Holdings Corp. v. Rubinstein
...not the mere averment of alienage which is significant — indeed the averment of alienage is unnecessary, Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34, 23 S.Ct. 532, 47 L.Ed. 697, but it is the averment that a party is a subject or a citizen of some foreign power which is crucial. See, f......
-
Wilson v. Republic Iron Steel Co, 21
...109, 15 Sup. Ct. 39, 39 L. Ed. 87; Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359, 17 Sup. Ct. 343, 41 L. Ed. 745; Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U. S. 25, 33, 23 Sup. Ct. 532, 47 L. Ed. 697. A civil case, at law or in equity, presenting a controversy between citizens of different states and inv......