Horne v. George H. Hammond Co.

Supreme Court

Horne v. George H. Hammond Co.

155 U.S. 393, 15 S. Ct. 167, 39 L. Ed. 197, 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2283

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 17, 1894

Docket86

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 155 U.S. 393 (Horne v. George H. Hammond Co.) 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

Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U.S. 393, 15 S. Ct. 167, 39 L. Ed. 197, 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2283 (1894).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chief Justice :

The title of this cause describes plaintiff in error as “of Chelsea in said district,” and the decedent as “ late of Chelsea,” and the defendant as “ a corporation organized. under the laws of the State of Michigan.” The writ and the original declaration do not appear in the record. The amended declaration commences thus: “ Plaintiff says that she is the widow of the late Granville P. Horne of Chelsea, Suffolk County, Comtaonwealth of Massachusetts, and that she was duly appointed by the probate court of Suffolk County administratrix of his estate.”

As the transcript of the record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of ..the suit, which depended upon the citizenship of the parties, and as counsel, upon having their attention called to the matter, have furnished nothing of record which would Supply the defect, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Rob *394 ertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 649; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, 702; Timmons v. Elyton Land Co., 139 U. S. 378 ; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121.

Reversed a/nd ordered accordingly.

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

The Chief Justice :

The title of this cause describes plaintiff in error as “of Chelsea in said district,” and the decedent as “ late of Chelsea,” and the defendant as “ a corporation organized. under the laws of the State of Michigan.” The writ and the original declaration do not appear in the record. The amended declaration commences thus: “ Plaintiff says that she is the widow of the late Granville P. Horne of Chelsea, Suffolk County, Comtaonwealth of Massachusetts, and that she was duly appointed by the probate court of Suffolk County administratrix of his estate.”

As the transcript of the record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of ..the suit, which depended upon the citizenship of the parties, and as counsel, upon having their attention called to the matter, have furnished nothing of record which would Supply the defect, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Rob *394 ertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 649; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, 702; Timmons v. Elyton Land Co., 139 U. S. 378 ; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121.

Reversed a/nd ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 U.S. 393, 15 S. Ct. 167, 39 L. Ed. 197, 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horne-v-george-h-hammond-co-scotus-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack