Nat Co v. Tugman, STEAM-SHIP
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HARLAN |
| Citation | 1 S.Ct. 58,106 U.S. 118,27 L.Ed. 87 |
| Parties | NAT.CO. v. TUGMAN |
| Docket Number | STEAM-SHIP |
| Decision Date | 06 November 1882 |
[Syllabus from page 118 intentionally omitted]
[Statement of Case from pages 118-120 intentionally omitted]
Page 120
John Chetwood, for plaintiff in error.
F. J. Fithian and J. R. Carmichael, for defendant in error.
HARLAN, J.
The underlying question in this case is whether, within the meaning of the constitution and of the statutes determining the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States, and regulating the removal of causes from state courts, a corporation created by the laws of a foreign state may, for the purposes of suing and being sued in the courts of the Union, be treated as a 'citizen' or 'subject' of such foreign state.
In Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 296, the court, speaking by Chief Justice TANEY, said that, in the previous case of Louisville, C. & C. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, it had been decided, upon full consideration, 'that where a corporation is created by the laws of a state, the legal presumption is that its members are citizens of the state in which alone the corporate body has a legal
Page 121
existence; and that a suit by or against a corporation, in its corporate name, must be presumed to be a suit by or against citizens of the state which created the corporate body; and that no averment or evidence to the contrary is admissible for the purposes of withdrawing the suit from the jurisdiction of a court of the United States.' Marshall v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 16 How. 314; Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. 232; Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 542; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 178; Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 82.
To the rule, thus established by numerous decisions, the court adheres. Upon this branch of the case it is therefore only necessary to say that if the individual members of a corporation, created by the laws of one of the United States, are, for the purposes of suit by or against it in the courts of the Union, conclusively presumed to be citizens of the state by whose laws that corporation is created and exists, it would seem to follow, logically, that the members of a corporation, created by the laws of a foreign state, should, for like purposes, be conclusively presumed to be citizens or subjects of such foreign state. Consequently, a corporation of a foreign state is, for purposes of jurisdiction in the courts of the United States, to be deemed, constructively, a citizen or subject of such state.
But it is suggested that the petition for the removal of the action into the circuit court of the United States is radically defective, in that it does not show that the National Steam-ship Company was a corporation of a foreign...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George Weston, Ltd. v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.
...in the courts of the Union, to be deemed constructively a citizen or subject of such state. National Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 1 S. Ct. 58, 27 L. Ed. 87; Petrocokino v. Stuart, Fed. Cas. No. 11,041; Purcell v. British Land & Mortgage Co. (C. C.) 42 F. 465. An alien corporation......
-
Crisp v. Champion Fibre Co, (No. 586.)
...in Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5, 14 [26 L. Ed. 643], its rightful jurisdiction comes to 'an end';"or, in Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 122 [1 S. Ct. 58, 27 L. Ed. 87], 'upon the filing, therefore, of the petition and the bond—the suit being removable under the statute—t......
-
Musa v. Wells Fargo Del. Trust Co., No. 1D15–0937.
...are void after removal of a case and prior to remand. 861 F.2d at 1254 n. 11. The Maseda court said:Since Steamship Co.[ v. Tugman, 106 U.S. 118, 1 S.Ct. 58, 27 L.Ed. 87 (1882) ] was decided, the removal statute 28 U.S.C. § 1446 was amended. Under the amendment, the filing of a removal peti......
-
Streckfus Steamers, Inc. v. Kiersky, 31761
...Brady v. J. B. McCrary Co., 244 F. 602; Kingston v. American Car & Foundry Co., 285 U.S. 560; 271 U.S. 99; 102 U.S. 135; 196 U.S. 239; 106 U.S. 118; 140 U.S. 137; 213 U.S. 207; Sec. 29, U.S. Judicial Code; 4 Hughes Fed. Practice, page 7, sec. 2271, page 20, sec. 2274, and page 61, sec. 2302......
-
George Weston, Ltd. v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.
...in the courts of the Union, to be deemed constructively a citizen or subject of such state. National Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 1 S. Ct. 58, 27 L. Ed. 87; Petrocokino v. Stuart, Fed. Cas. No. 11,041; Purcell v. British Land & Mortgage Co. (C. C.) 42 F. 465. An alien corporation......
-
Crisp v. Champion Fibre Co, (No. 586.)
...in Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5, 14 [26 L. Ed. 643], its rightful jurisdiction comes to 'an end';"or, in Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 122 [1 S. Ct. 58, 27 L. Ed. 87], 'upon the filing, therefore, of the petition and the bond—the suit being removable under the statute—t......
-
Musa v. Wells Fargo Del. Trust Co., No. 1D15–0937.
...are void after removal of a case and prior to remand. 861 F.2d at 1254 n. 11. The Maseda court said:Since Steamship Co.[ v. Tugman, 106 U.S. 118, 1 S.Ct. 58, 27 L.Ed. 87 (1882) ] was decided, the removal statute 28 U.S.C. § 1446 was amended. Under the amendment, the filing of a removal peti......
-
Streckfus Steamers, Inc. v. Kiersky, 31761
...Brady v. J. B. McCrary Co., 244 F. 602; Kingston v. American Car & Foundry Co., 285 U.S. 560; 271 U.S. 99; 102 U.S. 135; 196 U.S. 239; 106 U.S. 118; 140 U.S. 137; 213 U.S. 207; Sec. 29, U.S. Judicial Code; 4 Hughes Fed. Practice, page 7, sec. 2271, page 20, sec. 2274, and page 61, sec. 2302......