Greeley v. Smith

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine

Greeley v. Smith

10 F. Cas. 1074, 3 Story 76

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine

DecidedMay 15, 1844

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 10 F. Cas. 1074 (Greeley v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greeley v. Smith, 10 F. Cas. 1074, 3 Story 76 (circtdme 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

STORY, Circuit Justice.

I have no doubt, whatsoever, that it is. perfectly competent for the court to grant the present motion. It is often done in the circuit court in this circuit, where the jurisdiction of the court would or might be otherwise ousted. The same practice has been sanctioned upon the same ground by the supreme court of the [1075]*1075United States; and it is fully -within the remedial operation of the 32d section of the" judiciary act of 1789, c. 20. But I do not think this amendment is no-w necessary to sustain the jurisdiction of the court. The case of Louisville, C. & C. R. Co. v. Letson (decided at the last term of the supreme -court of the United States) 2 How. [43 U. S.] 497, is decisive on the point. There it was held, after a full review of all the former decisions, that a corporation established by and in a state, and doing business there, is to be deemed a citizen of the state; an artificial person, indeed, but still a citizen; and that the citizenship of the corporators was immaterial to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. This decision puts an end to all controversy on the point, and also puts an end to what has long been felt by the profession, as well as the bench, to be an anomaly in our jurisprudence. But I think, that it ought, in strictness, to be averred, that the corporation is a corporation created by and established in the state of Maine. Perhaps the language used in the descriptive part of the present writ is sufficiently direct for the purpose, as the corporation is described to be “the president, directors and company of the Exchange Bank, a corporation in Portland in the state of Maine, and the stockholders of which, together with the said Smith, are inhabitants of and residents in said state of Maine, and citizens thereof.” The plaintiffs may, therefore, have their •choice to amend the writ as they by their motion ask, or simply amend it by adding' the words above suggested, as they shall be advised. The amendment should be with costs simply of the term.

[NOTE. In Case No. 5,748 the surrender of the charter of the Exchange Bank was suggested, and it was decided that the suit against it was thereby abated. The other defendant thereupon (Id. 5,749) filed a plea of a former judgment in bar, to which plea there was a demurrer and joinder. The demurrer was allowed, and the ease ordered to trial. The question was submitted to the court upon the findings of the jury, who gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the value of the Alfred, secured in a certain bottomry bond under consideration. Id. 5,750.]

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

STORY, Circuit Justice.

I have no doubt, whatsoever, that it is. perfectly competent for the court to grant the present motion. It is often done in the circuit court in this circuit, where the jurisdiction of the court would or might be otherwise ousted. The same practice has been sanctioned upon the same ground by the supreme court of the [1075]*1075United States; and it is fully -within the remedial operation of the 32d section of the" judiciary act of 1789, c. 20. But I do not think this amendment is no-w necessary to sustain the jurisdiction of the court. The case of Louisville, C. & C. R. Co. v. Letson (decided at the last term of the supreme -court of the United States) 2 How. [43 U. S.] 497, is decisive on the point. There it was held, after a full review of all the former decisions, that a corporation established by and in a state, and doing business there, is to be deemed a citizen of the state; an artificial person, indeed, but still a citizen; and that the citizenship of the corporators was immaterial to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. This decision puts an end to all controversy on the point, and also puts an end to what has long been felt by the profession, as well as the bench, to be an anomaly in our jurisprudence. But I think, that it ought, in strictness, to be averred, that the corporation is a corporation created by and established in the state of Maine. Perhaps the language used in the descriptive part of the present writ is sufficiently direct for the purpose, as the corporation is described to be “the president, directors and company of the Exchange Bank, a corporation in Portland in the state of Maine, and the stockholders of which, together with the said Smith, are inhabitants of and residents in said state of Maine, and citizens thereof.” The plaintiffs may, therefore, have their •choice to amend the writ as they by their motion ask, or simply amend it by adding' the words above suggested, as they shall be advised. The amendment should be with costs simply of the term.

[NOTE. In Case No. 5,748 the surrender of the charter of the Exchange Bank was suggested, and it was decided that the suit against it was thereby abated. The other defendant thereupon (Id. 5,749) filed a plea of a former judgment in bar, to which plea there was a demurrer and joinder. The demurrer was allowed, and the ease ordered to trial. The question was submitted to the court upon the findings of the jury, who gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the value of the Alfred, secured in a certain bottomry bond under consideration. Id. 5,750.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 F. Cas. 1074, 3 Story 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greeley-v-smith-circtdme-1844.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack