The Corporation of New-Orleans v. Winter

Supreme Court

The Corporation of New-Orleans v. Winter

14 U.S. 91, 4 L. Ed. 44, 1 Wheat. 91, 1816 U.S. LEXIS 311

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 28, 1816

StatusPublished

Cited by97 cases

This text of 14 U.S. 91 (The Corporation of New-Orleans v. Winter) 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

The Corporation of New-Orleans v. Winter, 14 U.S. 91, 4 L. Ed. 44, 1 Wheat. 91, 1816 U.S. LEXIS 311 (1816).

Pincite

Opinion

Marshall, Ch. J.,

delivered the Opinion of the court, and, after, stating the facts, proceeded as follows:

The proceedings of the court, therefore, isjayrested in limine, by a question.respecting, its jurisdiction, in the case, of Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, this court determined,, on. mature consideration, that a citizen of the district of Columbia could not maintain a. suit in the circuit court of the United Stpteg., That opinion is still retained.

It has been attempted tó distinguish, a Territory from the- district of Columbia ;' but the court is of opinion, that this distinction cannot be maintained, They may .differ in. many respects, but neither, of them is a state,'in the Sense in which that term is used in the constitution. . Every reason assigned for the opinion of the court, that a citizen of Columbia was not capable of suing in the courts of the United States, under.the Judiciary Act, is equally applicable to a citizen of a territpry. Gabriel Winter, then, *95 being a citizen of the Mississippi Territory, was incapable of maintaining a suit alone in the circuit' court of Louisiana. Is his case mended by being associated with others who are capable of suing in that court ? In the case of Strawbridge et al. v. Curtis et al., it was decided, that where a joint interest is prosecuted,. the jurisdiction cannot be sustained, unless each individual be entitled to claim that jurisdiction. In this case it has been doubted, whether the parties might elect to. sue jointly or séverally. However this may be, having elected to sue jointly, the court is incapable of distinguishing their case, so far as respects jurisdiction, from one in which they were compelled to unite. The circuit court of Louisiana, therefore, had no jurisdiction of the cause, and their judgment must, on that account, be reversed, and the petition dismissed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Marshall, Ch. J.,

delivered the Opinion of the court, and, after, stating the facts, proceeded as follows:

The proceedings of the court, therefore, isjayrested in limine, by a question.respecting, its jurisdiction, in the case, of Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, this court determined,, on. mature consideration, that a citizen of the district of Columbia could not maintain a. suit in the circuit court of the United Stpteg., That opinion is still retained.

It has been attempted tó distinguish, a Territory from the- district of Columbia ;' but the court is of opinion, that this distinction cannot be maintained, They may .differ in. many respects, but neither, of them is a state,'in the Sense in which that term is used in the constitution. . Every reason assigned for the opinion of the court, that a citizen of Columbia was not capable of suing in the courts of the United States, under.the Judiciary Act, is equally applicable to a citizen of a territpry. Gabriel Winter, then, *95 being a citizen of the Mississippi Territory, was incapable of maintaining a suit alone in the circuit' court of Louisiana. Is his case mended by being associated with others who are capable of suing in that court ? In the case of Strawbridge et al. v. Curtis et al., it was decided, that where a joint interest is prosecuted,. the jurisdiction cannot be sustained, unless each individual be entitled to claim that jurisdiction. In this case it has been doubted, whether the parties might elect to. sue jointly or séverally. However this may be, having elected to sue jointly, the court is incapable of distinguishing their case, so far as respects jurisdiction, from one in which they were compelled to unite. The circuit court of Louisiana, therefore, had no jurisdiction of the cause, and their judgment must, on that account, be reversed, and the petition dismissed.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 U.S. 91, 4 L. Ed. 44, 1 Wheat. 91, 1816 U.S. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-corporation-of-new-orleans-v-winter-scotus-1816.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack