Smith v. Lyon

Citation10 S.Ct. 303,133 U.S. 315,33 L.Ed. 635
PartiesSMITH et al. v. LYON. 1
Decision Date03 February 1890
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Jeff Chandler, for plaintiffs in error.

R. C. Foster, for defendant in error.

MILLER, J.

This is a writ of error to the circuit court for the eastern district of Missouri. It was dismissed in that court for want of jurisdiction, and judgment rendered accordingly, to which this writ of error is prosecuted. 38 Fed. Rep. 53. The facts out of which the controversy arises are found in the first few lines of plaintiff's petition. In this they allege that they are partners doing business under the firm name of C. H. Smith & Co.; that the said C. H. Smith is a resident and citizen of St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, and Benjamin Fordyce is a resident and citizen of Hot Springs, in the state of Arkansas; and that the defendant, O. T. Lyon, is a resident and citizen of Sherman, in the state of Texas. To this petition, which set out a cause of action otherwise sufficient, the defendant, Lyon, who was served with the summons in the eastern district of Missouri, filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, appearing by attorney especially for that purpose, the ground of which is that one of the plaintiffs, Benjamin Fordyce, is, and was at the time of the institution of this suit, a resident and citizen of Hot Springs, in the state of Arkansas, and the defendant was a resident and citizen of Sherman, in the state of Texas, and that the suit was not brought in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff Fordyce or of the defendant.

The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was sustained by the circuit court, and the soundness of that decision is the question which we are called upon to decide. The decision of it depends upon the proper construction of the first section of the act of congress approved March 3, 1887, (24 St. 552,) as amended by the act of Aug st 13, 1888, (25 St. 433.) That statute professes to be an act to amend the act of March 3, 1875, and its object is 'to determine the jurisdiction of circuit courts of the United States, and to regulate the removal of causes from state courts, and for other purposes.' The first section of the act confers upon the circuit courts of the United States original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of $2,000, and arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority. It then proceeds to establish a jurisdiction in reference to the parties to the suit. These are controversies in which the United States are plaintiffs, or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states, with a like limitation upon the amount in dispute, and other controversies between parties which are described in the statute. This first clause of the act describes the jurisdiction common to all the circuit courts of the United States as regards the subject-matter of the suit, and as regards the character of the parties, who, by reason of such character, may, either as plaintiffs or defendants, sustain suits in circuit courts. But the next sentence in the same section undertakes to define the jurisdiction of each one of the several circuit courts of the United States with reference to its terri- torial limits; and this clause declares 'that no person shall be arrested in one district, for trial in another, in any civil action before a circuit or district court, and no civil suit shall be brought, before either of said courts, against any person, by any original process cess or proceeding, in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but, where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.' In the case before us, one of the plaintiffs is a citizen of the state where the suit is brought, namely, the state of Missouri, and the defendant is a citizen of the state of Texas. But one of the plaintiffs is a citizen of the state of Arkansas. The suit, so far as he is concerned, is not brought in the state of which he is a citizen. Neither as plaintiff nor as defendant is he a citizen of the district where the suit is brought. The argument in support of the error assigned is that it is sufficient if the suit is brought in a state where one of the defendants or one of the plaintiffs is a citizen. This would be true if there were but one plaintiff or one defendant. But the statute makes no provision in terms for the case of two defendants or two plaintiffs who are citizens of different states. In the present case, there being two plaintiffs citizens of different states, there does not seem to be, in the language of the statute, any provision that both plaintiffs may unite in one suit in a state of which either of them is a citizen. It may be conceded that the question thus presented, if merely a naked one of construction of language in a statute,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
116 cases
  • Wahl v. Franz
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 12 Marzo 1900
    ... ... circuit courts of the United States, has been repeatedly ... decided, and is now settled. Smith v. Lyon, 133 U.S ... 315, 10 Sup.Ct. 303, 33 L.Ed. 635; In re Pennsylvania ... Co., 137 U.S. 451, 11 Sup.Ct. 141, 34 L.Ed. 738; ... Fisk v ... ...
  • Wilhelm v. Consolidated Oil Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 30 Junio 1936
    ...in the suit is based solely on diversity of citizenship. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch. 267, 2 L.Ed. 435; Smith v. Lyon, 133 U.S. 315, 317, 10 S.Ct. 303, 33 L.Ed. 635; Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 395, 397, 17 S.Ct. 596, 41 L.Ed. 1049; Greeley v. Lowe, 155 U.S. 58, 68, 15 S.Ct. 24, 39 L.Ed......
  • Nickels v. Pullman Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 7 Agosto 1920
    ... ... the Judiciary Act of 1887-88 (24 Stat. 552, 25 Stat. 433), ... was to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal trial courts ... In Smith v. Lyon, 133 U.S. 315, 319, 10 Sup.Ct. 303, ... 304 (33 L.Ed. 635), it is said: ... '* ... * * Show the purpose of the Legislature to ... ...
  • Sidney Coal Co., Inc. v. Social Sec. Admin.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 19 Octubre 2005
    ...would undermine Congress's clearly stated intent. 12. The SSA asserts that the Supreme Court's ruling in Smith v. Lyon, 133 U.S. 315, 317, 10 S.Ct. 303, 33 L.Ed. 635 (1890), requires the conclusion that "the plaintiff" should be interpreted in the singular, as "each plaintiff" or as "all pl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Venue Generally
    • United States
    • US Code 2020 Edition Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Part IV. Jurisdiction and Venue Chapter 87. District Courts; Venue
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...and "the defendant," in view of many decisions holding that the singular terms were used in a collective sense. (See Smith v. Lyon, 1890, 10 S.Ct. 303, 133 U.S. 315, 33 L.Ed. 635; Hooe v. Jamieson, 1897, 17 S.Ct. 596, 166 U.S. 395, 41 L.Ed. 1049; and Fetzer v. Livermore, D.C., 1926, 15 F.2d......
  • 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Venue Generally
    • United States
    • US Code 2022 Edition Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Part IV. Jurisdiction and Venue Chapter 87. District Courts; Venue
    • 1 Enero 2022
    ...and "the defendant," in view of many decisions holding that the singular terms were used in a collective sense. (See Smith v. Lyon, 1890, 10 S.Ct. 303, 133 U.S. 315, 33 L.Ed. 635; Hooe v. Jamieson, 1897, 17 S.Ct. 596, 166 U.S. 395, 41 L.Ed. 1049; and Fetzer v. Livermore, D.C., 1926, 15 F.2d......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT