![]() Chapman, a citizen of the State of Illinois,"Įtc. Duncan, its attorneys, complains of Heman B. Barney, president of the United States Express Company, a joint-stock company organized under and by virtue of a law of the State of New York, and which said company is authorized by the laws of the State of New York to maintain and bring suits in the name of its president for or on account of any right of action accruing to said company, and a citizen of the State of New York, the plaintiff in this suit, by E. In conformity with such order at the December term, 1879, of the court, the plaintiff amended the declaration so as to make it, in lieu of the original, read as follows: The marshal of the district levied upon certain personal property and effects of the plaintiff in error.Īt the succeeding term of the court, upon motions made by the company for that purpose, leave was given it to file an amended declaration and to change its action from assumpsit to trover, and the plaintiff in error was ruled to plead to the amended declaration within ten days after service of a copy thereof upon his attorneys. On the 8th of August, 1879, upon statutory affidavit filed on behalf of the company, a writ of attachment was issued, under which writ U. At the same term of the court in which the declaration was filed, Chapman answered, setting up two defenses, viz.: (1) non assumpsit and (2) nul tiel corporation. ![]() Chapman, a citizen of Illinois, to recover the sum of $14,000 in money, alleged to have been entrusted to him for delivery to a certain company at La Salle, Illinois, and converted by him to his own use. ![]() In its original form, this was an action of assumpsit, brought in the court below by the United States Express Company, alleged to have been organized under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, and a citizen of that state, against Heman B. JUSTICE LAMAR delivered the opinion of the Court. When the judgment below is reversed in this Court for want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court, the plaintiff in error is entitled to his costs in this Court. It is again decided that this Court will of its own motion take notice of questions of jurisdiction presented by the record, although not raised by the parties, and that when the jurisdiction of a federal court is sought on the ground of diversity of citizenship, the facts conferring the jurisdiction must either be distinctly averred in the pleadings or must clearly appear in the record. ![]() It is error to proceed to trial and enter a verdict and render judgment against a defendant on an amended declaration in which the party plaintiff is changed when he has no notice of the order giving leave to amend, or opportunity to plead to the amended declaration, or day in court to answer to the suit.Īn allegation that the plaintiff is a joint stock company organized under the laws of a state is not an allegation that it is a corporation, but, on the contrary, that it is not a corporation, but a partnership.Īn allegation that a joint stock company plaintiff is a citizen of a state different from that of the defendant will not give this Court jurisdiction on the ground of citizenship. When there has been an appearance and no plea, or when, on account of amendments and changes of pleading, the declaration remains without an answer, it is error to call a jury and to enter a verdict unless for assessment of damages merely. 677 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SyllabusĪmendments are discretionary with the court below, and are not reviewable by this Court this rule applies to an amendment substituting a new sole plaintiff for the sole original plaintiff. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |