Amory v. Amory; Same v. Same

Amory v. Amory. Same v. Same 1. A petition for tire removal from a State court of a suit, bróugl-t'by tlie plain-. tiffs in their representative capacity as executors is insufficient, under tbe . act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 558), where the defendant, who is not a-citizen of the State where the suit is brought, alleges, So far as the citizenship of the plaintiffs is concerned, that they, “ as such executors,” are citizens of • that Statev 2. Where the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States depends upon the citizenship o* the parties, it has reference to their personal citizenship. 3. Insurance -Company v. -Pechner, supra, p. 183, cited and approved. Error to tbe Superior Court of tbe city of New York. The facts are stated'in thej opinion of tbe court. Mr. W. T. Birdsall and Mr. W. R. Beebe for the plaintiff in error. The court declined to hear Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter for the defendants in error. [MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite] Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. These cases are substantially disposed of by the decision in Insurance Company v. Pechner, supra, p. 183. They each present the question of the sufficiency of a petition for removal under the act of March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 558. The suits were in New York by the defendants in error as exeeutors, against the plaintiff in error, a citizen of New Jersey. The petitions for removal set'forth sufficiently the citizenship of the plaintiff in error, but as to' the defendants-, in error the allegations are “ that said plaintiffs, as such executors, are' citizens of the State of New York/’ Clearly this is not sufficient. Where the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States depends upon the citizenship of the parties,' it .has reference to. the 'parties as.persons;. A petition for removal must, therefore, state the personal citizenship of the parties, and not their official citizenship, if there can be such a thing. From the .language here employed, the court may properly, infer that, as .persons,, the plaintiffs in error were not citizens of "New York. For all that appears, they may. have, been -citizens 'of New. Jersey, as was. the defendant. Holding, ás we do, that, a State court is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction .upon a petition for removal until.'at .least a petition is filed, which, upon its face, shows the .right of the petitioner to .the transfer, it Avas not error for the court to retain these causes. ■ -We need not, therefore, 'consider whether the act' of 1867 limits the right of removal to the citizenship of the parties' at the time of the commencement of the suit, or whether the. State court had the right to call upon the. defendants in error-to show cause against the application. • . Judgments affirmed.