Skip to content


Wolfe Vs. Hartford Life and Annuity Ins. Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number148 U.S. 389
AppellantWolfe
RespondentHartford Life and Annuity Ins. Co.
Excerpt:
.....of the city, county and state of new york" is not sufficient to give the circuit court of that circuit jurisdiction on the ground of citizenship of the parties, when the record nowhere discloses the plaintiffs citizenship. the case is stated in the 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 disclosed 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 and positively averred in the pleadings or should appear with equal.....
Judgment:
Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co. - 148 U.S. 389 (1893)
U.S. Supreme Court Wolfe v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 148 U.S. 389 (1893)

Wolfe v. Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company

No. 182

Submitted March 23, 1893

Decided March 27, 1893

148 U.S. 389

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Syllabus

A complaint which avers that the plaintiff was, at the several times named therein, "and ever since has been and still is a resident of the city, county and State of New York" is not sufficient to give the circuit court of that circuit jurisdiction on the ground of citizenship of the parties, when the record nowhere discloses the plaintiffs citizenship.

The case is stated in the 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 disclosed 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 and 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, 33 U. S. 115 ; Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237 ; Menard v. Goggan, 121 U. S. 253 .

Judgment reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //