Case ID: f_266/html/0367-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

VERE v. BIANCHI et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    July 3, 1920.)
    No. 1425.
    Courts <3=’438 — Federal District Court for Porto Rico heM without jurisdiction in action by foreign subject; citizenship of defendants not appearing.
    Under Jones Act March 2, 1917 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 5803a et seq.), the federal District Court for Porto Eico is without jurisdiction of an action by citizen of France residing in Porto Eico against residents of the island; there being no allegation or proof that the parties on either side were citizens or subjects of a foreign state not domiciled in Porto Rico, or that they are citizens of a state, territory, or district of the United States not domiciled in Porto Eico.
    In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District ■ of Porto Rico; P. J. Hamilton, Judge.
    Action by Charles Vere against Francisco Bianchi and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
    Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico, with directions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
    Hamilton Rogers, of New York City (Willis Sweet and Miles M. Martin, both of San Juan, P. R., and Hugo Kohlmann and Henry A. Stickney, both of New York City, on the briefs), for plaintiff in error.
    Benjamin E. Norris, of New York City (Cay. Colly Cuchi, of San Juan, P. R., and Phelan Beale, of New York City, on the brief), for defendants in error.
    Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
   BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.

This action was brought May 28, 1917, in the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico. In the complaint it is alleged that the plaintiff is a citizen of the republic of France now residing in Porto Rico, and that the defendants are residents of Porto Rico. There are no allegations or proof that the parties on either side of the controversy are citizens or subjects of a foreign state or states not domiciled in Porto Rico, or that they are citizens of a state, territory, or district of the United States not domiciled in Porto Rico, and in the absence of such allegations or proof in actions brought since the enactment of the Jones Act on March 2, 1917 (39 Stat. at Large, 951, 965 [Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3803a et seq.]), the requisite diversity of citizenship to confer jurisdiction on the federal District Court for Porto Rico is wanting. Porto Rico Railway Light & Power Co. v. Diaz Mor, 253 U. S. -, 40 Sup. Ct. 516, 64 L. Ed. -, decided by the Supreme Court June 1, 1920.

The judgment of the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to dismiss the same for want of jurisdiction; the defendants in error to recover their costs in this court.