Bingham, Plaintiff in Error, versus Cabot, et al.

Bingham, Plaintiff in Error, versus Cabot, et al. THIS a diion came again before the court, on a writ of error; and an objedtion was taken to the record, that it was not Rated, and did not appear in any part of the pr'ocefs and pleadings', that the Plaintiffs below, and the Defendant, were citizens of different States, fo as to give jurifdidtion to-the Federal Court. The caption of the fuit was—“ At the st Circuit Court begun and held at BoJlon, within and for the' M Majfachufetts diitridl, on Thursday, the firft day of June. *‘A.D. 1797, by the honorable Oliver ElswoRTH, Efq. M Chief Juítice, and John Lowell, Efq. Diftridt Judge— u John Cabot, et al. verfus-Willi am BinghamAnd the declaration ('which was fon money had and received, to the Plaintiff’s ufe) fet forth, “ that John Cabot, of Beverly, in the dif- ' “ tridi oí Majfachufetts, merchant, and furviving copartner 0/, a /indreve Cabot, late of the fame place, merchant, deceafed, •K I/Iofts Brown, Ifrael Thorndike, and Jofeph Lee, all of the “ fafne place, merchants, Jonathan Jack (on, Efq. of Newbury. « Port, Samuel Cabot, of BoJlon, merchant, George Cabot, of K Brookyln, Efq. .Jofiua Ward, oí Salem, merchant, and Ste- “ phen Cleveland, of the fame place, merchant, all in our faid ,⅝ diftridt of Majfachufetts, ánd Branch Cabot, of BoJlon, “ aforefaid, now refident'iat Philadelphia aforefaid, merchant, “•in plea of the cafe, for that faid William, at faid Bojlon, on “ the day of the purchafe of this writ, being indebted to the “ Plaintiff's, &e. promifed to pay, &c.” The Defendant pleaded non ajfumpf.ty and an-iffuc being thereupon .jó’'”ed and tried, there was a verdidtaiid judgment for the Plaintiff, for 27,224 dollars and 93 cents, and coils. Lee, Attorney General, contended for the Plaintiff in error, “ that there was not a fufficient allegation on the record, of ' the citizenihip of the parties, to fuftain the jurifdiclon of the Circuit Court, which is a limited jut ifdidlion. Though the Conftitution declares, that “ the citizens of each ftate fliali he entitled to all privilege's and immunities of citizens of the <c feveral ftates,” Art. 4. f. 2. it contemplates, in the judicial article, the diftincKon between citizens of different ftates. A citizen of one ftate may refide for'a tern, of years in another ftate, of which he is r.ot a citizen ; for, citi .zenihip is clearly not co-extenfive with inhabitancy. In préfent cafe, neither the Plaintiffs, generally, nor any individual of theta, nor the Defendants, will be found exprefsly de-fignated as aliens, or as citizens of any other place, or ftate, than that in which the fuit was brought. Befides, there is not an entirety of parties, even as .to the Plaintiffs, and they are r.ot all ftated as belonging to the fame ftate. Wherever there is a limited ■ jurifdidiion, the fails that bring the fuit. within the jurifdiition muft appear on the record. 9 Mod. 95. Dexter, (of Majpzch-ufetts) urged, on the other hand, that fuificient appeared to fhew-that, by legal intendment, the caufe was within the jurifdi&ion of the court; that though it is difficult to eftabliih a'general rule, as to what, makes citizenihip, yet that the citizenihip of a particular ftate, may be changed, by a citizen of the United States, without going through the forms and folemnities required in the cafe of an alien; tha't, 1 on the principle of the conftitution, a citizen of the United States, is to be confidered more particularly as a citizen of that State, inwhich he has-his Jboui'e and family, is a permanent1 inhabitant, and'1 is,-in ihort, domiciliated; that ftating in the declaration the party to be of a particular place defignaiés his home, and, ofcourfe, his citizenihip; and that the.description.of Francis Cabot (oí Bojlon, aforefaid, now reiident in Philadelphia, &c.) proves what was intended, by ftating the places of abode of the feveral 'parties. 2 Dant/. Cent. j>. 20. 5 Com. Dig.- 289. 2 Stra. 7S6. 290. 1 L. Raym. 405. 2 L. Rayzr. ,H?3- . See ant. f, 19. [MAJORITY — The Court] The Court were clearly of opinion, that it was neceffa-ry to fet forth the citizenihip (or alienage, where a'foreigner was concerned)' of the refpective parties, in order to bring the1 cafe within the jurifditftion of the Circuit Court; and that the record, in the prefent cafe,- was in that rdpetSt defective. . This caufe and many others, in the fame predicament, .were, accordingly, ftruck off the docket.