Case Name: THE HOPE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PROVIDENCE v. BOARDMAN ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1809-02
Citations: 5 Cranch 57
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE HOPE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PROVIDENCE v. BOARDMAN ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 57–61

Head Matter:
THE HOPE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PROVIDENCE v. BOARDMAN ET AL.
A corpomioti —and ' cannot litigate in the United SlateB, unless in consequence of the character of the individuals frho compose the body politic, -which, character must appear b) proper averments upon the record.
ERROR to the circuit court for me district of Rhode Island, in ah action upon a policy of insúranee. .
The only question decided in this court was that relative to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.
The parties were described in the declaration as follows : “ William-Henderson Boardman, and Pascal Paoli Pope, both of Boston, in the district of Massachusetts, merchants and citizens of the State of Massachusetts,, complain of The Hope Insurance. Company of Providence, a company legally incorporated by the legislature of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and established at Providence in said district
The question-of jurisdiction was not made in the court below.
Ingersjtll, for the plaintiffs- in error,
contended', that thfejiirisdiction must appear upon the face of the proceedings, according to the decision in the case' of Binghamy.. Cabot, 3 Dah 382. And that it does not appear upon this record that the parties are citizens ofidifferent states; a corporation aggregate cannot Be- a citizen of any state; and here is no averment of citizenship of the individuals .who compose the corporation.
Adams, contra.
The whole argument ¿gainst us depends upon the single casé of Bingham v. Cabot; for although in other cases the same point has been decided, vet the Subsequent decisions are all founded upon that case. The) effect of that decision has been to exclude man)! cases upon nice questions of pleading, which would otherwise have been clearly within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. No exception was taken to the jurisdiction in the court below; and this court would not willingly turn us out of-court, after encountering all the risk, expense, delay and iabour of, a jury trial, upon an exception, which, if taken in the first instance, might haye prevented all that risk, expense, and delay. .In-the case of Abercrombie v. Dupuis, (ante, vol. 1. p. 343.) the pre^pnt Chief Justice (Marshall) intimated a doubt how ¿fie question would then have been decided iíü' weVe 'a new case, and. if the court was not bound by the case of Bingham v. Cabot.- This doubt shows that the court was not theri inclined to extend the principle farther than that case warrants. At the time the court- decided the case of Bingham v. Cabot, the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States was an object of jealousy, and there was pro'bably a desire on the part of the court to remove all ground of suspicion, by deciding doubtful cases against the jurisdiction. This circumstance probably induced thtm to be over scrupulous upon that subject. But it isas much the duty of this . court to exercise jurisdiction in cases where it is given by the constitution and laws .of the'United States,-as to refuse to assume it where it is not given.
• The person who drew the declaration itrthe pre«ént case seems to have been aware of the decision in the case of Bingham v. Cabot, and to have intended to describe the parties in such a manner as to give the court jurisdiction,- The defendant is described as “ a company legally incorporated by the. legislature' oj the State of Rhode Islarid and Providence Plantations, and established at Providence in the said district.”
The term citizen could not with propriety be applied to a corporation aggregate. It could only be a citizen by intendment of law. It is only a moral person; but it may be a citizen quoad hoc,i. e. in .the sense in‘which the term citizen is used in that part of the constitution which speaks of the jurisdiction of the judicial power of the United States. The term is indeterminate in its signification. It •has different meanings in different parts of the constitution. When it says “ the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states,” the term' citizens has a meaning different from that in which it is used in describing the jurisdiction of the courts.
To say that all the individual members of a body corporate 'must be citizens of a certain description, destroys the idea of a body politic. It is the body politic,, the moral person, that sues; -and not the individuals who compose the corporation. Its powers, its duties and capacities are different from those of the individuals of whom, it is composed. It can neither derive benefit from the privileges, nor suffer injury by the incapacities, of any of those individuals.
Thus the infancy of any or even of all the members of a body corporate does not affect the validity of its acts. . Nor does'the alienage of the members prevent the body politic from holding lands. A majority of the members of the bank' of the United States are-aliens.
rphe objection goes to exclude all .corporations aggregate from the federal courts. For if a corporation cahnot be "a citizen it cannot be an alien. And as the individual members are constantly changing by the transfer of stock, it is impossible to ascertain at any precise moment' who are the individuals who constitute the corporate body; and it would at any time be in the power of a corporation defendant to evade the jurisdiction of the court, by taking in a new member who should be of the same state with the plaintiff.
At all events it is an objection which ought to he pleaded in abatement according to the course of the common law, so that the plaintiff may have a better . declaration ; and by that means much expense, time and labour would be saved.
The reason of giving jurisdiction to the courts of the United States in cases between citizens of different states, applies with' the greatest force to the case of a powerful moneyed corporation erected within, and under the laws of a particular state. If there was a probability that an individual citizen of a state could influence the state courts in his favour, how much stronger is the probability that they could be influenced in favour of a powerful moneyed institution which might be composed of the most influential-characters in the state. What chance for justice could a . plaintiff have against such a powerful association in the courts of a small state whose judges perhaps were annually elected, or held their offices at the will of the legislature i
If the jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited by the letter of the constitution, they have no jurisdiction in a case between a citizen of one state and a citizen of another state; because the constitution speaks of citizens, in the plural, so that there must 'fee more than one plaintiff, and more'than one defendant. So also there could be no jurisdiction if one of the parties was a woman, because a woman cannot be a citizen; which is a term applicable only to a male.
It is'not necessary that a person should be a citizen to commit treason; it may be committed by an aliep.
Judge Jay, as an argument in favour ot the suability of the states, urged' that a corporation. could undoubtedly be sued m the courts of the United States.
A similar question of jurisdiction being involved in the case of The. Bank of the United States v fieveaux et at, and the counsel i n that-case expressing a wish to be heard before this case should be decided, the court agreed to hear both cases at the same time; the further arguments in this case were consequently blended with those' in the ether.

Opinion:
. The Court having, in the case of The Bank of the United States v. D;ve'aux et al. decided that the right of a corporation to litigate .in the courts' of the United States depended upon the character (as to citizenship) of. the members which compose .the body corporate, and that a body corporate as such cannot be a citizen, within the meaning of the constitution, reversed the judgment, for want of jurisdiction in the court below.