Thomas v. National Bank of D. O. Mills

Seventh Circuit

Thomas v. National Bank of D. O. Mills

106 F. 438, 45 C.C.A. 407, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3979

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 1901

DocketNo. 628

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 F. 438 (Thomas v. National Bank of D. O. Mills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas v. National Bank of D. O. Mills, 106 F. 438, 45 C.C.A. 407, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3979 (7th Cir. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE. CURIAM.

This suit was brought by the defendant in error, a national bank, located at the city of Sacramento, Cal. The declaration fails to show the diverse citizenship necessary to the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and the record nowhere supplies the omission. The residence of the defendants (plaintiffs in error) is alleged, but that is not equivalent to an averment of citizenship. Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137, 15 L. Ed. 318; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 24 L. Ed. 1057; Everhart v. College, 120 U. S. 223, 7 Sup. Ct. 555, 30 L. Ed. 623; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121, 11 Sup. Ct. 966, 35 L. Ed. 657. By the proviso of the fourth section of the act of July 12, 1882 (22 Stat. 163, c. 290), national banks were deprived of the right, theretofore possessed by virtue of their national character, to sue in the federal courts. The judgment below is reversed, with direction to dismiss the case without prejudice to another action, unless, in the discretion of the court, an amendment shall be made showing the jurisdiction. .

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

PEE. CURIAM.

This suit was brought by the defendant in error, a national bank, located at the city of Sacramento, Cal. The declaration fails to show the diverse citizenship necessary to the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and the record nowhere supplies the omission. The residence of the defendants (plaintiffs in error) is alleged, but that is not equivalent to an averment of citizenship. Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137, 15 L. Ed. 318; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 24 L. Ed. 1057; Everhart v. College, 120 U. S. 223, 7 Sup. Ct. 555, 30 L. Ed. 623; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121, 11 Sup. Ct. 966, 35 L. Ed. 657. By the proviso of the fourth section of the act of July 12, 1882 (22 Stat. 163, c. 290), national banks were deprived of the right, theretofore possessed by virtue of their national character, to sue in the federal courts. The judgment below is reversed, with direction to dismiss the case without prejudice to another action, unless, in the discretion of the court, an amendment shall be made showing the jurisdiction. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 F. 438, 45 C.C.A. 407, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-national-bank-of-d-o-mills-ca7-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack