Stuart v. Easton

Supreme Court

Stuart v. Easton

156 U.S. 46, 15 S. Ct. 268, 39 L. Ed. 341, 1895 U.S. LEXIS 452

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 21, 1895

Docket151

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 156 U.S. 46 (Stuart v. Easton) 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

Stuart v. Easton, 156 U.S. 46, 15 S. Ct. 268, 39 L. Ed. 341, 1895 U.S. LEXIS 452 (1895).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chief Justice

: Plaintiff in error is described throughout the record as “ a citizen of London, England,” and the defendants as “corporations of the State of Pennsylvania.” As the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court confessedly depended *47 on the alienage of plaintiff in error, and that fact was not made affirmatively to appear, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court with leave to apply for amendment and for further proceedings. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382; Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 125; Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136; Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 115; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Börs v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252, 263; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U. S. 393.

Judgment reversed.

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

The Chief Justice

: Plaintiff in error is described throughout the record as “ a citizen of London, England,” and the defendants as “corporations of the State of Pennsylvania.” As the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court confessedly depended *47 on the alienage of plaintiff in error, and that fact was not made affirmatively to appear, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court with leave to apply for amendment and for further proceedings. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382; Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 125; Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136; Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 115; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Börs v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252, 263; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U. S. 393.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 U.S. 46, 15 S. Ct. 268, 39 L. Ed. 341, 1895 U.S. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stuart-v-easton-scotus-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack