Sullivan v. the Fulton Steam Boat Company
| Decision Date | 08 March 1821 |
| Citation | 6 Wheat. 450,19 U.S. 450,5 L.Ed. 302 |
| Parties | SULLIVAN et al. v. THE FULTON STEAM BOAT COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New-York.
This was a bill in equity, filed in the Court below, in which Sullivan, one of the plaintiffs, was described as a citizen of Massachusetts, and others of the plaintiffs, as citizens of Connecticut and Vermont, and the defendants were described as a corporate body incorporated by the legislature of the State of New-York, for the purpose of navigating, by steam boats, the waters of the East river, or Long Island Sound, ir said State. The object of the bill was to obtain an injunction to prevent the defendants from so exercising the privileges granted to them by the said act, and by an assignment from Livingston and Fulton of their rights under certain other acts of the legislature of New-York, as to obstruct the plaintiffs in the right claimed by them under the constitution and laws of the United States, and under a coasting license, of employing a certain steam boat belonging to the plaintiffs in the transportation of goods and passengers in the waters of the States of Connecticut and New-York. The defendants demurred to the bill, and a decree dismissing it was entered pro forma, by consent, and the cause was brought by appeal to this Court.
Mr. Webster, for the appellants, opened the record, from which it not appearing that the Court below had jurisdiction, as the respective parties were not described as citizens of different States, the decree, dismissing the bill, was affirmed.
DECREE. On motion of the appellants, by their counsel, and on inspection of the transcript of the record of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New-York, it is DECREED and ORDERED, that the decree of the said Circuit Court, in this case, be, and the same is hereby affirmed, it not appearing from the record that the said Circuit Court had jurisdiction in said cause. The said affirmance to be without prejudice to the complainants on the merits of the case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Edelstein
...Insurance Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch, 57, 3 L. Ed. 36; Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61, 3 L. Ed. 38; Sullivan v. Fulton Steamboat Co., 6 Wheat. 450, 5 L. Ed. 302; Commercial & R. Bank v. Slocomb, 14 Pet. 60, 10 L. Ed. 354. But in Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R., 16 How. 314......
-
City of Wilmington v. Addicks
... ... employees of the Oxy-Hydrogen Company of the State of ... Delaware, incorporated and organized ... Co. , 72 N. Y. 245, 75 N ... Y. 335; Brooklyn Steam Transit Co. vs. City of ... Brooklyn , 78 N.Y. 524; New ... ...
-
Ex parte Shaw
...be, citizens of the state which created the corporation. Bank v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61; Insurance Co. v. Boardman, Id. 57; Sullivan v. Steamboat Co., 6 Wheat. 450; Breithaupt v. Bank, 1 Pet. 238; Bank v. Slocomb, 14 Pet. But in Railroad Co. v. Letson, in 1844, it was adjudged, upon great co......
-
Chapman v. Barney
...court below or in this court, is presented by the record, and, under repeated decisions of this court, must be considered. Sullivan v. Steam-Boat Co., 6 Wheat. 450; Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148; Grace v. Insurance Co., 109 U. S. 278, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207; Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. ......