Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
LA CONFIANCE COMPAGNIE ANONYME D'ASSURANCE v. HALL, 1890 — 137 U.S. 61 · caselaw · US
General
LA CONFIANCE COMPAGNIE ANONYME D'ASSURANCE v. HALL
137 U.S. 6134 L. Ed. 573·Supreme Court of the United States·1890
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
LA CONFIANCE COMPAGNIE ANONYME D’ASSURANCE v. HALL.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
No. 11.
Argued and submitted October 21, 1890.
Decided November 3, 1890.
In a petition for the removal of a cause from a State court on the ground of diverse citizenship, the failure to state the existence of such citizenship at the commencement of the suit as well as when the removal was asked is a fatal defect.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Charles B. Alexander (with whom was Mr. John J. McCook on the brief) for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Given Campbell for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Fuller]
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller
delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was commenced by plaintiff in error in a State court, and removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri upon petition of the defendant, on the ground that the plaintiff was an alien and citizen of France and the defendant a citizen of Missouri. The existence of such diverse citizenship at the commencement of the suit, as well as when the removal was asked, did not appear affirmatively in the petition for removal or in the record when that was filed.
We are compelled to reverse the judgment, with costs, and .remit the cause to the Circuit Court, with a direction to remand to the State Court. Stevens v. Nichols, 130 U. S. 230; Crehore v. Ohio and Mississippi Railway Co., 181 U. S. 240; Jackson v. Allen, 132 U. S. 27.
Reversed and ordered accordingly.