Menard v. Goggan

Supreme Court

Menard v. Goggan

121 U.S. 253, 7 S. Ct. 873, 30 L. Ed. 914, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2043

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 11, 1887

Docket177

StatusPublished

Cited by34 cases

This text of 121 U.S. 253 (Menard v. Goggan) 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

Menard v. Goggan, 121 U.S. 253, 7 S. Ct. 873, 30 L. Ed. 914, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2043 (1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice "Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the suit which depended alone on the citizenship of the parties. The petition states that Edmund Menard, the plaintiff, “resides in Randolph County, in'the state of Illinois,” and that the defendants, of whom Thomas Goggan, the defendant in error, was one, “reside in the city of Galveston,” in the state of Texas. There is nothing else from which the citizenship of either party can be inferred, and this is not enough. We have so held at the present term in Continental Insurance Company v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, where the authorities are cited; Halsted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 341, and Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U. S. 223. This judgment must, therefore, be reversed on the authority of those cases, and as the fault rests with the plaintiff in error, whose duty it was when bringing the suit to make the jurisdiction appear, the reversal will 'be at his costs in this court. Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229; Halsted v. Buster, supra. If the necessary citizenship *254 actually existed at the time the suit was begun, it will be for the court below to determine, when the case gets back, whether the record shall be amended so as to show that fact, and thus make out the jurisdiction.

The judgment of the. Circuit ' Cou/rt is reversed at the cosis of the plaintiff in error, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

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.

This record does not show that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the suit which depended alone on the citizenship of the parties. The petition states that Edmund Menard, the plaintiff, “resides in Randolph County, in'the state of Illinois,” and that the defendants, of whom Thomas Goggan, the defendant in error, was one, “reside in the city of Galveston,” in the state of Texas. There is nothing else from which the citizenship of either party can be inferred, and this is not enough. We have so held at the present term in Continental Insurance Company v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, where the authorities are cited; Halsted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 341, and Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U. S. 223. This judgment must, therefore, be reversed on the authority of those cases, and as the fault rests with the plaintiff in error, whose duty it was when bringing the suit to make the jurisdiction appear, the reversal will 'be at his costs in this court. Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229; Halsted v. Buster, supra. If the necessary citizenship *254 actually existed at the time the suit was begun, it will be for the court below to determine, when the case gets back, whether the record shall be amended so as to show that fact, and thus make out the jurisdiction.

The judgment of the. Circuit ' Cou/rt is reversed at the cosis of the plaintiff in error, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 U.S. 253, 7 S. Ct. 873, 30 L. Ed. 914, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menard-v-goggan-scotus-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack