Miller v. Weller

Third Circuit

Miller v. Weller

286 F.2d 172

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 1961

DocketNo. 13377

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 286 F.2d 172 (Miller v. Weller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Weller, 286 F.2d 172 (3d Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in favor of the plaintiff in a suit to recover under right claimed under the contract made between the parties. The defendant has appealed. This is a diversity case and that is the only ground of federal jurisdiction. The parties have not raised the point but we must. There is no allegation in the plaintiff’s complaint of the citizenship of the defendants. Plaintiff alleges he is a Florida citizen but, of course, in the absence of diversity the federal court has no jurisdiction. Section 1653 of 28 U.S.C. provides, however:

“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.”

Pursuant to this statute the plaintiff may, if he can, file an amendment within twenty days which shall state positively that the defendants were citizens of a state other than Florida at the commencement of this action. Mantin v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 9 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 204, Otherwise the action must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in favor of the plaintiff in a suit to recover under right claimed under the contract made between the parties. The defendant has appealed. This is a diversity case and that is the only ground of federal jurisdiction. The parties have not raised the point but we must. There is no allegation in the plaintiff’s complaint of the citizenship of the defendants. Plaintiff alleges he is a Florida citizen but, of course, in the absence of diversity the federal court has no jurisdiction. Section 1653 of 28 U.S.C. provides, however:

“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.”

Pursuant to this statute the plaintiff may, if he can, file an amendment within twenty days which shall state positively that the defendants were citizens of a state other than Florida at the commencement of this action. Mantin v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 9 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 204, Otherwise the action must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 F.2d 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-weller-ca3-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack