Edwards v. Tanneret

Supreme Court

Edwards v. Tanneret

79 U.S. 446, 20 L. Ed. 415, 12 Wall. 446, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1216

DecidedNovember 20, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 79 U.S. 446 (Edwards v. Tanneret) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edwards v. Tanneret, 79 U.S. 446, 20 L. Ed. 415, 12 Wall. 446, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1216 (1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice STRONG

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is manifest that by the act of Congress of July 28,1866, no proceeding of any description was intended to be transferred into the Circuit Court, unless it was one of which the Circuit Court, could take jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, as they were prior to the passage of the act. All suits and proceedings were transferred;iuto the District Court, but only those could be acted upon by either the District or Circuit Court which might have been instituted in those courts, or one of them. All others -were directed to remain in the District Court without further action. It was not the design of Congress to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Federal courts in the Louisiana district, but rather to enable them to take up and dispose of cases which were within their jurisdiction, but which had been commenced iu the Provisional Court, and, either not carried to judgment when, *450 that court was abolished, or, if carried to judgment, not completed by execution.

Such being the purpose and meaning of the acfc; it becomes necessary to inquire whether this was a case of which the Circuit Court could entertain jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, for if it was not, it never was legally transferred into that court, but it remained, by force of the statute, in the District Court. The record discloses that the suit ivas brought in the Provisional Court by the plaintiff, who is described in the petition as a citizen, residing in the city of New Orleans, against the defendant, described' as residing on False Diver, in the parish of Pointe Coupee. There is no other description of the citizenship of the parties contained in the petition. The citation, however, describes both the plaintiff and the defendant as citizens of Louisiana, and these are all the. averments of citizenship -which can be found in the record. As the suit was brought for a balance of an account, its subject-matter did not bring it within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and hence, if it was a case of which that court could entertain jurisdiction, it must be because of the citizenship of the parties. But when the plaintiff- in an action invokes the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court because of the1-citizenship of the parties, it must appear upon the record that the citizenship is such as to justify the court in taking cognizance of the case. And certainly the pleadings here exhibit nothing from which the court cam see that both parties are not citizens of Louisiana. As already noticed, the petition makes no averment respecting the- citizenship of the defendant, and simply describes the plaintiff as a citizen, without asserting of what state or kingdom. And the citation describes both parties as citizens of Louisiana. ■

It is true that after the judgment was obtained in the Provisional Court an injunction was granted against its execution, but neither that injunction nor the bill or petition upon -which it was founded can be considered any part of this ■ record; and if they could, they would not aid the plaintiff, for in neither of them is there any averment of the citizen *451 ship of the parties. Nor does it sufficiently appear ih any other way that both parties were not citizens .of Louisiana. The plaintiff, indeed, when he moved for the transfer of the ■case -into the Circuit Court, suggested that the defendant was an alien, but the suggestion was not made in the Provisional Court. No proof of it was offered, and the alleged alienage was subsequently denied. It is clear, therefore, that the case was not one of which the Circuit Court could entertain jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, and that it was never legally transferred to that court. It follows that the order dismissing the cause was correct.

We are to be understood as deciding only what is before us. We express no-opinion respecting the regularity or effect of the injunction which was obtained in the Provisional Court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice STRONG

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is manifest that by the act of Congress of July 28,1866, no proceeding of any description was intended to be transferred into the Circuit Court, unless it was one of which the Circuit Court, could take jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, as they were prior to the passage of the act. All suits and proceedings were transferred;iuto the District Court, but only those could be acted upon by either the District or Circuit Court which might have been instituted in those courts, or one of them. All others -were directed to remain in the District Court without further action. It was not the design of Congress to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Federal courts in the Louisiana district, but rather to enable them to take up and dispose of cases which were within their jurisdiction, but which had been commenced iu the Provisional Court, and, either not carried to judgment when, *450 that court was abolished, or, if carried to judgment, not completed by execution.

Such being the purpose and meaning of the acfc; it becomes necessary to inquire whether this was a case of which the Circuit Court could entertain jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, for if it was not, it never was legally transferred into that court, but it remained, by force of the statute, in the District Court. The record discloses that the suit ivas brought in the Provisional Court by the plaintiff, who is described in the petition as a citizen, residing in the city of New Orleans, against the defendant, described' as residing on False Diver, in the parish of Pointe Coupee. There is no other description of the citizenship of the parties contained in the petition. The citation, however, describes both the plaintiff and the defendant as citizens of Louisiana, and these are all the. averments of citizenship -which can be found in the record. As the suit was brought for a balance of an account, its subject-matter did not bring it within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and hence, if it was a case of which that court could entertain jurisdiction, it must be because of the citizenship of the parties. But when the plaintiff- in an action invokes the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court because of the1-citizenship of the parties, it must appear upon the record that the citizenship is such as to justify the court in taking cognizance of the case. And certainly the pleadings here exhibit nothing from which the court cam see that both parties are not citizens of Louisiana. As already noticed, the petition makes no averment respecting the- citizenship of the defendant, and simply describes the plaintiff as a citizen, without asserting of what state or kingdom. And the citation describes both parties as citizens of Louisiana. ■

It is true that after the judgment was obtained in the Provisional Court an injunction was granted against its execution, but neither that injunction nor the bill or petition upon -which it was founded can be considered any part of this ■ record; and if they could, they would not aid the plaintiff, for in neither of them is there any averment of the citizen *451 ship of the parties. Nor does it sufficiently appear ih any other way that both parties were not citizens .of Louisiana. The plaintiff, indeed, when he moved for the transfer of the ■case -into the Circuit Court, suggested that the defendant was an alien, but the suggestion was not made in the Provisional Court. No proof of it was offered, and the alleged alienage was subsequently denied. It is clear, therefore, that the case was not one of which the Circuit Court could entertain jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, and that it was never legally transferred to that court. It follows that the order dismissing the cause was correct.

We are to be understood as deciding only what is before us. We express no-opinion respecting the regularity or effect of the injunction which was obtained in the Provisional Court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 U.S. 446, 20 L. Ed. 415, 12 Wall. 446, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-tanneret-scotus-1871.