Stockwell v. Boston & M.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1904 |
| Citation | 131 F. 152 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
| Parties | STOCKWELL v. BOSTON & M. R. Co. |
Clarke C. Fitts, for plaintiff.
Wm. B. C. Stickney, for defendant.
This cause has been heard upon a demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration. A declaration that does not set forth a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the court is insufficient. This court has jurisdiction of suits of this nature only when they are between citizens of different states, or between citizens and aliens. The declaration should, therefore, show by direct allegation, without ambiguity, either in itself or in connection with the writ, the required diversity of citizenship or alienage. There is no mention of either in this declaration or writ. The defendant is set up as a corporation organized under the laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts which may well enough show that it is a citizen of the state of Massachusetts; but the plaintiff is only set up as 'of Brattleboro, in the county of Windham and state of Vermont, executrix' of the will of Walter D. Stockwell, late of Brattleboro. This may be true and she not be a citizen of Vermont, but only a temporary resident or inhabitant, and a citizen of the same state as the defendant. Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 44, 12 Sup.Ct. 935, 36 L.Ed. 768. This leaves the court now without jurisdiction of the question discussed by counsel as to maintaining a suit upon the New Hampshire statute.
Demurrer sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newcomb v. Burbank
...159 F. 58, 86 C.C.A. 248; Crosby v. Cuba R. Co. (C.C.) 158 F. 144; Koike v. Atchison, etc., R. Co. (C.C.) 157 F. 623; Stockwell v. Boston, etc., R. Co. (C.C.) 131 F. 152; Tug River Coal, etc., Co. v. Brigel, 67 F. 625, C.C.A. 577; Pacific Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Irvine (C.C.) 49 F. 113. In......