Stockwell v. Boston & M. R.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont

Stockwell v. Boston & M. R.

131 F. 152, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4892

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont

DecidedJune 30, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 F. 152 (Stockwell v. Boston & M. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stockwell v. Boston & M. R., 131 F. 152, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4892 (circtdvt 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

This cause has been heard upon a demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration. A declaration that does not set forth a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the court is insufficient. This court has jurisdiction of suits of this nature only when they are between citizens of different states, or between citizens and aliens. The declaration should, therefore, show by direct allegation, without ambiguity, either in itself or in connection with the writ, the required diversity of' [153]*153citizenship or alienage. There is no mention of either in this declaration or writ. The defendant is set up as a corporation organized under the laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, which may well enough show that it is a citizen of the state of Massachusetts; but the plaintiff is only set up as “of Brattleboro, in the county of Windham and state of Vermont, executrix” of the will of Walter D. Stockwell, late of Brattleboro. This may be true and she not be a citizen of Vermont, but only a temporary resident or inhabitant, and a citizen of the same state as the defendant. Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444, 12 Sup. Ct. 935, 36 L. Ed. 768. This leaves the court now without jurisdiction of the question discussed by counsel as to maintaining a suit upon the New Hampshire statute.

Demurrer sustained.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

This cause has been heard upon a demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration. A declaration that does not set forth a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the court is insufficient. This court has jurisdiction of suits of this nature only when they are between citizens of different states, or between citizens and aliens. The declaration should, therefore, show by direct allegation, without ambiguity, either in itself or in connection with the writ, the required diversity of' [153]*153citizenship or alienage. There is no mention of either in this declaration or writ. The defendant is set up as a corporation organized under the laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, which may well enough show that it is a citizen of the state of Massachusetts; but the plaintiff is only set up as “of Brattleboro, in the county of Windham and state of Vermont, executrix” of the will of Walter D. Stockwell, late of Brattleboro. This may be true and she not be a citizen of Vermont, but only a temporary resident or inhabitant, and a citizen of the same state as the defendant. Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444, 12 Sup. Ct. 935, 36 L. Ed. 768. This leaves the court now without jurisdiction of the question discussed by counsel as to maintaining a suit upon the New Hampshire statute.

Demurrer sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F. 152, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stockwell-v-boston-m-r-circtdvt-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack