The Hope Insurance Company of Providence v. Boardman Et Al

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJay
Citation9 U.S. 57,5 Cranch 57,3 L.Ed. 36
PartiesTHE HOPE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PROVIDENCE v. BOARDMAN ET AL
Decision Date01 February 1809

9 U.S. 57
5 Cranch 57
3 L.Ed. 36
THE HOPE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PROVIDENCE
v.
BOARDMAN ET AL.
February Term, 1809

ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Rhode Island, in an action upon a policy of insurance.

The only question decided in this court was that relative to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.

The parties were described in the declaration as follows: 'William Henderson Boardman, and Pascal Paoli Pope, both of Boston, in the district of Massachusetts, merchants and citizens of the State of Massachusetts, complain of The Hope Insurance Company of Providence, a company legally incorporated by the legislature of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and established at Providence in said district.'-

Page 58

The question of jurisdiction was not made in the court below.

Ingersoll, for the plaintiffs in error, contended, that the jurisdiction must appear upon the face of the proceedings, according to the decision in the case of Bingham v. Cobot, 3 Dal. 382. And that it does not appear upon this record that the parties are citizens of different states; a corporation aggregate cannot be a citizen of any state; and here is no averment of citizenship of the individuals who compose the corporation.

Adams, contra.

The whole argument against us depends upon the single case of Bingham v. Cobot; for although in other cases the same point has been decided, yet the subsequent decisions are all founded upon that case. The effect of that decision has been to exclude many cases upon nice questions of pleading, which would otherwise have been clearly within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. No exception was taken to the jurisdiction in the court below; and this court would not willingly turn us out of court, after encountering all the risk, expense, delay and labour of a jury trial, upon an exception, which, if taken in the first instance, might have prevented all that risk, expense, and delay. In the case of Abercombie v. Dupuis, (ante, vol. 1. p. 343.) the present Chief Justice (Marshall) intimated a doubt how the question would then have been decided if is were at new case, and if the court was not bound by the case of Bingham v. Cabot. This doubt shows that the court was not then inclined to extend the principle farther than that case warrants. At the time the court decided the case of Bingham v. Cabot, the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States was an object of jealousy, and there was probably a desire on the part of the court to remove all ground of suspicion, by deciding doubtful cases against the jurisdiction. This circumstance probably induced them to be over scrupulous upon that

Page 59

subject. But it is as much the duty of this court to exercise jurisdiction in cases where it is given by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Neirbo Co v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, No. 38
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1939
    ...state for jurisdictional purposes. Compare Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404, 15 L.Ed. 451, with Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch 57, 3 L.Ed. 36. Throughout, the mode of thought was metaphorical. The classic doctrine was that a corporation 'must dwell in the place of its creation......
  • National Mut Ins Co of District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co Inc, No. 29
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1949
    ...where the master touch was lacking. Cf. Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch 61, 3 L.Ed. 38; Hope Insurance Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch 57, 3 L.Ed. 36; Maryland Insurance Co. v. Woods, 6 Cranch 29, 3 L.Ed. 143; Maryland Ins. Co. v. Wood, 7 Cranch 402, 3 L.Ed. 385; McGovney, A Suprem......
  • Gutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp, No. 229
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 13, 1963
    ...case); Grace v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 278, 283, 3 S.Ct. 207, 209, 27 L.Ed. 932; Hope Ins. Co. of Providence v. Boardman, 5 Cranch 57, 3 L.Ed. 36; see Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 371 U.S. 812, 83 S.Ct. 58, 9 L.Ed.2d 54; Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 305—306, 83 S.Ct. 15......
  • Nyberg v. Montgomery Ward & Co., No. 453.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • August 12, 1954
    ...state for jurisdictional purposes. Compare Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404, 15 L.Ed. 451 with Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch 57, 3 L.Ed. 36. Throughout, the mode of thought was metaphorical. The classic doctrine was that a corporation `must dwell in the place of its creation,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Neirbo Co v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, No. 38
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1939
    ...state for jurisdictional purposes. Compare Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404, 15 L.Ed. 451, with Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch 57, 3 L.Ed. 36. Throughout, the mode of thought was metaphorical. The classic doctrine was that a corporation 'must dwell in the place of its creation......
  • National Mut Ins Co of District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co Inc, No. 29
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1949
    ...where the master touch was lacking. Cf. Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch 61, 3 L.Ed. 38; Hope Insurance Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch 57, 3 L.Ed. 36; Maryland Insurance Co. v. Woods, 6 Cranch 29, 3 L.Ed. 143; Maryland Ins. Co. v. Wood, 7 Cranch 402, 3 L.Ed. 385; McGovney, A Suprem......
  • Gutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp, No. 229
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 13, 1963
    ...case); Grace v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 278, 283, 3 S.Ct. 207, 209, 27 L.Ed. 932; Hope Ins. Co. of Providence v. Boardman, 5 Cranch 57, 3 L.Ed. 36; see Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 371 U.S. 812, 83 S.Ct. 58, 9 L.Ed.2d 54; Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 305—306, 83 S.Ct. 15......
  • Nyberg v. Montgomery Ward & Co., No. 453.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • August 12, 1954
    ...state for jurisdictional purposes. Compare Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404, 15 L.Ed. 451 with Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch 57, 3 L.Ed. 36. Throughout, the mode of thought was metaphorical. The classic doctrine was that a corporation `must dwell in the place of its creation,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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