Case: STUART v. EASTON
Abbreviation: Stuart v. Easton
Decision Date: 1895-01-21
Docket Number: No. 151
Citation: 156 U.S. 46
Volume: 156
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: STUART v. EASTON.
Judges: 
Pages: 46–47

Head Matter:
STUART v. EASTON.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 151.
Argued January 15, 1895.
Decided January 21, 1895.
An averment that the plaintiff is “ á citizen of London, England,” is not sufficient to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction on the ground of his alienage, the defendant being a citizen ; and on the question being raised in this court, the case may be remanded with leave to apply to the Circuit Court for amendment and for further proceedings.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. O. Berkeley Taylor and Mr. A. T. Freedley, (with whom was Mr. W. Brooke Bawle on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
Mr. E. J. Steele for defendants, in error.

Opinion:
The Chief Justice
: Plaintiff in error is described throughout the record as " a citizen of London, England," and the defendants as "corporations of the State of Pennsylvania." As the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court confessedly depended on the alienage of plaintiff in error, and that fact was not made affirmatively to appear, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court with leave to apply for amendment and for further proceedings. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382; Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 125; Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136; Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 115; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Börs v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252, 263; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U. S. 393.
Judgment reversed.