Rondot v. Township of Rogers
| Decision Date | 02 February 1897 |
| Docket Number | 432. |
| Citation | 79 F. 676 |
| Parties | RONDOT v. TOWNSHIP OF ROGERS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
C. A Lightner, for plaintiff in error.
Henry M. Duffield, for defendant in error.
Before TAFT and LURTON, Circuit Judges, and SAGE, District Judge.
This action was begun in the court below, the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Michigan. The jurisdiction of the court rests upon the sufficiency of the first paragraph of the declaration to show it. That paragraph is as follows:
'Augustus E. Rondot, a resident of Ontario, Canada, and a citizen of the dominion of Canada and of the empire of Great Britain plaintiff, by Keena & Lightner, his attorneys, comes and complains of the township of Rogers, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Michigan, and a citizen of said state, and a resident of the Eastern district of Michigan thereof, defendant therein, filing this declaration entering the rule to plead, etc., as commencement of suit of a plea of breach of covenant.'
By the first section of the act of March 3, 1875, as amended March 3, 1887, and August 13, 1888, the circuit courts of the United States are given cognizance of controversies between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects in which the matter of dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, $2,000. The dominion of Canada is a colony of the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and those who enjoy political protection and privileges under the government of the dominion of Canada and the province of Ontario, and owe allegiance thereto, are subjects of the queen of England; as much so as if they, owing the same allegiance, were residents of London. Hence the right of a Canadian to sue in the courts of the United States must be based on the jurisdiction of those courts to hear and decide controversies between citizens of a state of the United States and foreign subjects, and the correct averment would have been that the plaintiff was a subject of the queen of England, and an alien. This seems a very technical ruling, and it is so; but it is in accordance with a recent decision of the supreme court of the United States upon a similar case. In Stuart v. City of Easton, 156 U.S. 46, 15 Sup.Ct. 268, the chief justice, speaking for the court, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blair Holdings Corp. v. Rubinstein
...example: Nichols Lumber Co. v. Franson, 203 U.S. 278, 27 S.Ct. 102, 51 L.Ed. 181; Bishop v. Averill, C. C., 76 F. 386; Rondot v. Township of Rogers, 6 Cir., 79 F. 676 (but see Mahoning Valley Ry. Co. v. O'Hara, 6 Cir., 196 F. 945); Betancourt v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, C.C., 101 F. ......
-
Rondot v. Rogers Tp.
... 99 F. 202 RONDOT v. ROGERS TP. No. 699. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. January 2, 1900 ... [99 F. 203] ... This is ... a writ of error to review the judgment of the circuit court ... for the defendant, the township of Rogers, Presque Isle ... county, Mich., in a suit by Augustus E. Rondot upon 21 bonds ... purporting to be obligations of the township ... [99 F. 204] ... The ... original declaration, filed April 18, 1891, termed by the ... pleader a 'plea of the breach of covenant,' counted ... ...
-
Telesphore Couture v. Watkins
...does not appear affirmatively in the complaint. Stuart v. City of Easton, 156 U.S. 46, 15 S.Ct. 268, 39 L.Ed. 341; Rondot v. Township of Rogers, 6 Cir., 1897, 79 F. 676, certiorari denied 168 U.S. 709, 18 S.Ct. 945, 42 L. Ed. 1211. An allegation under 28 U.S. C.A. § 1332 that a plaintiff is......
-
Mahoning Valley Ry. Co. v. O'Hara
...makes only this allegation: 'That she is now, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a citizen of Ireland. ' In Rondot v. Rogers, 79 F. 676, 25 C.C.A. 145, court, applying, as it though, the then recent decision of the Supreme Court in Stuart v. Easton, 156 U.S. 46, 15 Sup.Ct. 268, 39 ......