Everhart v. Huntsville College

Supreme Court

Everhart v. Huntsville College

120 U.S. 223, 7 S. Ct. 555, 30 L. Ed. 623, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1963

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 31, 1887

Docket144

StatusPublished

Cited by40 cases

This text of 120 U.S. 223 (Everhart v. Huntsville College) 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

Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U.S. 223, 7 S. Ct. 555, 30 L. Ed. 623, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1963 (1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered -the opinion of the court.

These are appeals from a decree dismissing the original bill and a cross-bill in a suit begun in the Circuit Court of .the United States for the Northern Hi strict of, Alabama, - by George M. Everhart against the Huntsville Female Academy, George W. F. Price, Martha T. Rison, Myra J. Erwin, Robert .M. Erwin, William II. Erwin, Joseph B. Erwin, and Marcus A. Erwin, and in which Hugh L. Olay, as administrator de bonis non of Abraham R. Erwin, - deceased, was after-wards *224 added as a defendant, but on looking into the record we find no sufficient evidence of the jurisdiction of tlie Circuit Court, which depends alone on the citizenship of the parties. It is . stated in the original bill that Everhart is a resident of Wisconsin, and the same fact is also shown by the testimony,-..but this, as it has often been held, is not enough. An averment of residence is not the equivalent of an averment of citizenship for the purposes of jurisdiction in the courts of the United States. According to the pleadings the Huntsville Female Academy is .an Alabama corporation, and the other defendants are residents of either Alabama or Tennessee. The decree dismissing both the original and cross-bills is reversed, because the record fails to .show the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, but as the fault rests alone‘on Everhart, the complainant in the original bill, whose duty it was to put on record the facts necessary to show the jurisdiction, the reversal will be at his costs in this court. This whole subject has already been considered twice during the present term ; once in Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, and again in Paper v. Fordyce, 119 U. S. 469. The reasons for our judgment sufficiently appear in the opinions delivered in those cases. If on the return of the case to the Circuit Court it is made to appear that the citizenship necessary for the jurisdiction existed* at the time the suit was brought, it will be for that court to determine whether an amendment of the pleadings ought to be allowed, so as to cure the present defects.

The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, • at the costs .of the appellcmt Everhart, mid the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent .with this opinion.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered -the opinion of the court.

These are appeals from a decree dismissing the original bill and a cross-bill in a suit begun in the Circuit Court of .the United States for the Northern Hi strict of, Alabama, - by George M. Everhart against the Huntsville Female Academy, George W. F. Price, Martha T. Rison, Myra J. Erwin, Robert .M. Erwin, William II. Erwin, Joseph B. Erwin, and Marcus A. Erwin, and in which Hugh L. Olay, as administrator de bonis non of Abraham R. Erwin, - deceased, was after-wards *224 added as a defendant, but on looking into the record we find no sufficient evidence of the jurisdiction of tlie Circuit Court, which depends alone on the citizenship of the parties. It is . stated in the original bill that Everhart is a resident of Wisconsin, and the same fact is also shown by the testimony,-..but this, as it has often been held, is not enough. An averment of residence is not the equivalent of an averment of citizenship for the purposes of jurisdiction in the courts of the United States. According to the pleadings the Huntsville Female Academy is .an Alabama corporation, and the other defendants are residents of either Alabama or Tennessee. The decree dismissing both the original and cross-bills is reversed, because the record fails to .show the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, but as the fault rests alone‘on Everhart, the complainant in the original bill, whose duty it was to put on record the facts necessary to show the jurisdiction, the reversal will be at his costs in this court. This whole subject has already been considered twice during the present term ; once in Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, and again in Paper v. Fordyce, 119 U. S. 469. The reasons for our judgment sufficiently appear in the opinions delivered in those cases. If on the return of the case to the Circuit Court it is made to appear that the citizenship necessary for the jurisdiction existed* at the time the suit was brought, it will be for that court to determine whether an amendment of the pleadings ought to be allowed, so as to cure the present defects.

The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, • at the costs .of the appellcmt Everhart, mid the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent .with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 U.S. 223, 7 S. Ct. 555, 30 L. Ed. 623, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everhart-v-huntsville-college-scotus-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack