Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance

148 U.S. 389, 13 S. Ct. 602, 37 L. Ed. 493, 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2238

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: March 27, 1893
• Docket: 162
• Status: Published

Opinion

The Chief Justice :

The complaint in this case avers that the plaintiff was at the several times mentioned therein, “ and ever since has been and still is, a resident of the city, county and State of New York,” but his citizenship is nowhere dis-t closed by the record.

It is essential in cases where the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of the parties that such citizenship, or the facts which in legal intendment constitute it, should be distinctly arid positively averred in the pleadings, or should appear with equal distinctness in other parts of the record. It is not sufficient that jurisdiction may be inferred argumentatively from the averments. Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115; Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237; Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253.

Judgment reversed at the cost of plaintiff in error and the canse remoulded for further proceedings.