Caignet v. Pettit

2 U.S. 234
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 1, 1795·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

—Many important topics have been discussed, in the course of this argument; but we do not think it necessary to decide on more than one of them. The sole question is—were both the plaintiff and the original defendants citizens of the French Republic, at the time of instituting this suit ? We are clearly of opinion, from the facts disclosed in the affidavits which have been read, that the plaintiff was not then, nor is he now, a citizen of France. It is true, that he has not acquired the rights, of citizenship here ; nor, as it appears, in any other country ; but, whatever may be the inconvenience of that situation, he had an undoubted right to dissent from the revolution ; and, as a member of the minority, to refuse allegiance to the new government, and withdraw from the territory of France. Every thing that could be said or done to manifest such a determination, has been said and done by the plaintiff, except the act of becoming the subject, or citizen, of another country.

Let the rule be discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Caignet v. Pettit, 2 U.S. 234 (1795).

2 U.S. 234 (Caignet v. Pettit) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.