Thomas Jackson Et Al Appellants v. William Ashton
| Decision Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Citation | 33 U.S. 148,8 L.Ed. 898,8 Pet. 148 |
| Parties | THOMAS JACKSON ET AL., APPELLANTS v. WILLIAM E. ASHTON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the circuit court of the United States for the Pennsylvania district.
After the argument was commenced by Mr Key for the appellant, the court stated that an objection to the jurisdiction of this case, arose from the omission to state the citizenship of the defendant, William E. Ashton, in the bill, as filed in the circuit court, and appearing on the printed copy of the record. The caption of the bill was in the following terms.
The bill proceeds to state that the complainants and the appellants are citizens of the state of Virginia. The only description of the defendant is, 'William E. Ashton, of the city of Philadelphia,' which is in the body of the bill.
Mr Peters, for the appellee, stated, that although aware of the objection to the jurisdiction, in consequence of there being an omission to state the citizenship of the appellee, yet he was not disposed to urge the exception. If the court could take jurisdiction of the case, the appellee was entirely willing; indeed, he was anxious that the court should hear and determine the cause. He wished it to be understood that the appellee made no objection to the court's proceeding in the case.
Mr Key contended, that the caption of the bill was part of it, and that taken with the bill, the citizenship of the defendant was sufficiently shown. The disposition of this court has been manifested in many cases, to get rid of technical difficulties of this kind.
The title or caption of the bill, is no part of the bill, and does not remove the objection to the defects in the pleadings. The bill and proceedings should state the citizenship of the parties, to give the court jurisdiction of the case.
The only difficulty which could arise to the dismissal of the bill, presents itself upon the statement, 'that the defendant is of Philadelphia.' This, it might be answered, shews that he is a citizen of Pennsylvania.
If this were a new question, the court might decide otherwise; but the decision of the court, in cases which have heretofore been before it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc.
...upon an Article III court a subject matter jurisdiction that Congress or the Constitution forbid. See, e.g., Jackson v. Ashton, 33 U.S. (8 Peters), 148, 148-49, 8 L.Ed. 898 (1834); Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884). The ......
-
Seminole Tribe Florida v. Florida
...and n. 17, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951); Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244, 55 S.Ct. 162, 165, 79 L.Ed. 338 (1934); Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148, 149, 8 L.Ed. 898 (1834). We have, however, construed the Amendment, despite its text, to apply only to unconsenting States. See, e.g., Clark v. Barna......
-
Laird v. Ramirez
...n. 17, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951); Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244, 55 S.Ct. 162, 165, 79 L.Ed. 338 (1934); Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148, 149 33 U.S. 148, 149, 8 L.Ed. 898 (1834)); Lawrence County v. South Dakota, 668 F.2d 27, 29 (8th Cir.1982) ("Federal courts operate within jurisdictional......
-
E. Henry Wemme Co. v. Selling
...the circuit court. Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Ward, 16 Okl. 131, 85 P. 459; Reed v. Hollister, 106 Or. 407, 212 P. 367. In Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148, 8 L.Ed. 898, Chief Justice Marshall said: "The title or caption of the bill is no part of the bill, and does not remove the objection to......