Sun Printing Publishing Association v. Charles William Edwards

• Citation: 48 L.Ed. 1027,24 S.Ct. 696,194 U.S. 377
• Decision Date: 16 May 1904
• Docket Number: No. 239,239
• Parties: SUN PRINTING & PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, Plff. in Err. , v. CHARLES WILLIAM EDWARDS
• Court: United States Supreme Court

194 U.S. 377

24 S.Ct. 696

48 L.Ed. 1027

SUN PRINTING & PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, Plff. in Err.,

v CHARLES WILLIAM EDWARDS.

No. 239.

Argued April 20, 1904.

Decided May 16, 1904.

Mr. Franklin Bartlett for Sun Printing & Publishing association.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 377-378 intentionally omitted] Mr. Thomas F. Bayard for Charles William Edwards.

[Argument of Counsel from Pages 378-379 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

The certificate of the United States circuit court of appeals for the second circuit is as follows:

'This cause comes here upon a writ of error to review a judgment of the circuit court, southern district of New York, entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of defendant in error, who was plaintiff below. Upon examination of the record it appears that, in addition to various questions as to the merits of the controversy which are presented by the assignments of error, the jurisdiction of the circuit court is in issue. Under §§ 5 and 6 of the act of March 3, 1891, writs of errors in such cases are to be taken direct to the Supreme Court, and the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the circuit courts of appeal does not include such cases.

'In accordance, therefore, with the practice indicated in Cincinnati, H. & D. Co. v. Thiebaud, 177 U. S. 615, 44 L. ed. 911, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 822, and American Sugar Ref. Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277, 45 L. ed. 859, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 646, and followed by this court in United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 51 C. C. A. 299, 113 Fed. 465, this court elects to reserve judgment upon the other questions, and to certify the question of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.

'Statement of Facts.

'The facts out of which the question of jurisdiction arises are as follows:

'The action is for breach of contract of employment. The complaint avers, and the answer admits, that defendant is a domestic corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of New York, having its principal office for the transaction of business in the southern district of New York. The complaint further avers, and the answer admits, that 'plaintiff is a resident of the state of Delaware.' Upon the trial the plaintiff testified: 'I started in the printing business about thirty years ago. . . . I have been on the New York Tribune, on the World, the Philadelphia Record, and the American Press Association. . . . I had charge of the Morning News, Wilmington, Delaware. . . . In this city [New York] I worked on the New York Tribune, on the Sun, on the World, and in the American Press Association. . . . Just prior to my going to work upon the New York Sun [under the contract in suit] I was the publisher and business manager of the Evening Journal of Wilmington, Delaware, and president of the company. . . . [After my discharge from the employ of the Sun] I finally secured a place with the New Haven Palladium, and I was there a while. . . . One of the reasons I left the New Haven Palladium was that it was too far away from home. I live in Delaware, and I had to go back and forth. My family were over in Delaware.'

'There was no other testimony in any way bearing upon plaintiff's residence or citizenship.

'The jurisdiction of the circuit court was not questioned by the defendant in the court below, and the assignments of error do not present any such question.

Questions Certified.

'Upon the facts above set forth, the question of law concerning which this court desires the instruction of the Supreme Court is:

"Had the circuit court jurisdiction of the controversy between plaintiff and defendant?'

'In accordance with the provisions of § 6 of the act of March 31, 1891, establishing courts of appeal, etc., the foregoing question of law is, by the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit, hereby certified to the Supreme Court.'

In the argument at bar on behalf of the Sun Printing & Publishing Association,—the plaintiff in error in the circuit court of appeals,—the jurisdiction of the circuit court over the controversy was denied, not only upon the hypothesis that Edwards, the plaintiff, was not alleged or shown to have been a citizen of Delaware, but also upon the assumption that the Sun Association was not averred to have been a citizen of New York. The latter contention may be at once dismissed from view, because the allegation of the complaint, admitted by the answer, 'that defendant is a domestic corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of New York, having its principal office for the transaction of business in the southern district of New York,' clearly imported that the corporation was originally created by the state of New York. The presumption necessarily followed that the corporation was composed of citizens of that state, and consequently the corporation was entitled to sue or be sued in the courts of the United States as a citizen of New York. Southern R. Co. v. Allison, 190 U. S. 326, 47 L. ed. 1078, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 713.

We come to the contention that the citizenship of Edwards was not averred in the complaint or shown by the record, and hence jurisdiction did not appear.

In answering the question whether the circuit court had jurisdiction of the...