Wolfe v. Hartford Life Annuity Ins Co

Decision Date27 March 1893
Docket NumberNo. 162,162
Citation148 U.S. 389,13 S.Ct. 602,37 L.Ed. 493
PartiesWOLFE v. HARTFORD LIFE & ANNUITY INS. CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Robert S. Green, for plaintiff in error.

Herman Kobbe, for defendant in error.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

The complaint in this case avers that the plaintiff was at the several times mentioned therein, 'and ever since has been, and still is, a resident of the city, county, and state of New York,' but his citizenship is nowhere disclosed by the record.

It is essential, in cases where the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties, that such citizenship, or the facts which in legal intendment constitute it, should be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or should appear with equal distinctness in other parts of the record. It is not sufficient that jurisdiction may be inferred argumentatively from the averments. Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115; Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 193; Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 873.

Judgment reversed, at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 cases
  • McEldowney v. Card
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • September 21, 1911
  • Stadtmuller v. Miller
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • March 19, 1926
    ...by construction of its provisions." Residence and citizenship are not synonymous terms. Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance Co., 13 S. Ct. 602, 148 U. S. 389, 37 L. Ed. 493; Pennsylvania Co. v. Bender, 13 S. Ct. 591, 148 U. S. 255, 37 L. Ed. 441; Sharon v. Hill (C. C.) 26 F. 337; Dan......
  • Newcomb v. Burbank
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 14, 1910
    ......76, 23 Sup.Ct. 610, 47. L.Ed. 715;. [181 F. 336] . Wolfe v. Hartford Life, etc., Co., 148 U.S. 389, 13. Sup.Ct. 602, 37 L.Ed. 493; ......
  • Marine Midland Bank v. Bravo, Civil Action No. 00-369 (E.D. Pa. 2/11/2000)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • February 11, 2000
    ...in New York and that defendant Bravo resides in Pennsylvania would not establish diversity jurisdiction. See Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 148 U.S. 389, 389 (1893) (allegation of "residence" insufficient to confer diversity jurisdiction); Grace v. American Central Ins. Co., 109......
  • 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