Timmons v. Elyton Land Co
| Citation | 35 L.Ed. 195,139 U.S. 378,11 S.Ct. 585 |
| Parties | TIMMONS et al. v. ELYTON LAND CO |
| Decision Date | 30 March 1891 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
T. H. Watts, Sr., and H. A. Herbert, for plaintiffs in error.
Alex. T. London, for defendant in error.
This was an action brought by Margaret C. McElrath, Mary E. McElrath, and Linda E. Timmons against the Elyton Land Company, in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Alabama. The complaint averred 'that Mary E. McElrath is a resident of the state of North Carolina, and that Linda E. Timmons and Margaret Celia McElrath are residents of the state of South Carolina,' and that the defendant 'is a corporation chartered under the laws of the state of Alabama and doing business within said state.' By the summons the marshal was commanded 'to summons the Elyton Land Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of the state of Alabama, and who is a citizen of the state of Alabama, to appear * * * to answer the complaint of Margaret Celia McElrath and Linda E. Timmons, who are residents of the county of Spartanburg, state of South Carolina, and Mary E. McElrath, who is a citizen of the state of North Carolina.' The complaint was subsequently amended by adding the names of 12 other plaintiffs without any averment as to their citizenship. In the bill of exceptions, which appears in the record, it is stated that 'the plaintiffs were non-residents of the state of Alabama.' As the record does not show that the circuit court had jurisdiction of the suit, which depended upon the citizenship of the parties, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of the plaintiffs in error, and the cause remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings, (Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 873; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, ante, 449;) and it is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craswell v. Belanger
... ... Trust Co., 106 U.S. 554, 1 S.Ct. 519; Railway Co ... v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 4 S.Ct. 510; Timmons v. Land ... Co., 139 U.S. 378, 11 S.Ct. 585. See, also, ... Telephone Co. v. Robinson, 48 F. 769, ... ...
-
Ex parte Shaw
...they reside.' Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Grace v. American Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 278, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207; Timmons v. Land Co., 139 U. S. 378, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. By the act of May 4, 1858, c. 27, § 1, it was enacted that, in a state c......
-
American Sugar-Refining Co. v. Johnson
... ... in the record, citing Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, 119 ... U.S. 237, 7 S.Ct. 193; Timmons v. Land Co., 139 U.S ... 378, 11 S.Ct. 585; and also held that, 'where the ... jurisdiction of ... ...
-
Zicos v. Dickmann
...U.S. 237, 240, 7 S.Ct. 193, 30 L.Ed. 380; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U.S. 694, 702, 11 S.Ct. 449, 34 L.Ed. 1078; Timmons v. Elyton Land Co., 139 U.S. 378, 11 S.Ct. 585, 35 L.Ed. 195; Roberts v. Lewis, 144 U.S. 653, 656, 12 S.Ct. 781, 36 L.Ed. 579; Stuart v. Easton, 156 U.S. 46, 15 S.Ct. 268, 39 ......