Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2012DanGoodman InmyworkDiversityofCitizenshipandaCitizenofaStatewhoisnotaCitizenof theUnitedStates,IshowedinthecasesofBondurantv.Watson(103U.S.281, 1880)andSunPrinting&PublishingAssociationv.Edwards(194U.S.377,1904)that onewhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesandacitizenofaState(Fourteenth Amendment),aswellasonewhoisacitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenofthe UnitedStates(ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution),hastherequisite citizenshiptogiveacircuitcourtoftheUnitedStatesjurisdictioninadiversityof citizenshipsuit. InmyworkDiversityofCitizenshipincludesaCitizenofaStatewhoisnota CitizenoftheUnitedStates,Imadethefollowingstatement: AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesistoidentifiedhiscitizenshipinafederalcourtby averringthatheorsheisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesANDacitizenofaStateofthe Union.... ThereasonforthisisthatacitizenoftheUnitedStatescanbeacitizenoftheUnited StateswithoutbeingacitizenofaState,asinthecaseoflivingoverseas(aboard). [Footnote1] IfoneisacitizenoftheUnitedStates,thenheorsheistoaverthatheisacitizen oftheUnitedStatesANDacitizenofaStateoftheUnion: ThecourtsoftheUnitedStateshavenotjurisdictionincasesbetweencitizens oftheUnitedStates,unlesstherecordexpresslystatesthemtobecitizensof differentstates.Woodv.Wagon:6U.S.(2Cranch)1(1804).{Beforethe FourteenthAmendment}
http://books.google.com/books?id=qzkFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false
thestateofLouisiana,holdinghisfixedandpermanentdomicilintheparishofSt. Charles.Thepetition,then,doesnotaverpositively,thatthedefendantisacitizen ofthestateofLouisiana,butinthealternative,thatheisacitizenoraresident. Consistentlywiththisaverment,hemaybeeither. ...AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesmaybecomeacitizenofthatstateinwhich hehasafixedandpermanentdomicil[Footnote2];butthepetitionDOESNOT AVERthattheplaintiffisacitizenoftheUnitedStates.... Thedecisionsofthiscourtrequire,thattheavermentofjurisdictionshallbe positive,andthatthedeclarationshallstateexpresslythefactonwhichjurisdiction depends.Itisnotsufficientthatjurisdictionmaybeinferredargumentativelyfrom itsaverments. TheanswerofJamesBrownasserts,thatbothplaintiffanddefendantare citizensoftheStateofLouisiana. Withoutindicatinganyopiniononthequestion,whetheranyadmissioninthe pleacancureaninsufficientallegationofjurisdictioninthedeclaration,weareallof opinionthatthisanswerdoesnotcurethedefectofthepetition.Iftheavermentof theanswermaybelookedinto,thewholeavermentmustbetakentogether.Itis thatbothplaintiffanddefendantarecitizensofLouisiana.Brownv.Keene:33U.S. (Peters8)112,at115thru116(1834).{BeforetheFourteenthAmendment}
http://books.google.com/books?id=DUUFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false
TheFourteenthAmendmentdidnotmodifytherequirementofoneaverringthat heorsheisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesANDacitizenofaState: Intheoralargumentbeforethiscourt,theinquiryarose,whethersincethe adoptionoftheFourteenthAmendmenttotheFederalConstitutionthemere allegationofresidenceinIllinoisdidnotmakesuchaprimafaciecaseofcitizenship inthatStateas,intheabsenceofproof,shouldbedeemedsufficienttosustainthe jurisdictionoftheCircuitCourt.Thatamendmentdeclaresthatallpersonsbornor naturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizens oftheUnitedStates,andoftheStatewheretheyreside.Itwassuggestedthata residentofoneoftheStatesisprimafacieeitheracitizenoftheUnitedStatesoran alien,ifacitizenoftheUnitedStates,andalsoaresidentofoneoftheStates,heis, bythetermsoftheFourteenthAmendment,alsoacitizenoftheStatewhereinhe resides,andifanalien,hewasentitledinthatcapacitytosueintheFederalcourt, withoutregardtoresidenceinanyparticularState.Itisnottobedeniedthatthere issomeforceinthesesuggestions,buttheydonotconvinceusthatitiseither necessaryorwisetomodifytherulesheretoforeestablishedbyalonglineof decisionsuponthesubjectofthejurisdictionoftheFederalcourts.Thosewhothink 2
thattheFourteenthAmendmentrequiressomemodificationofthoserules,claim, notthattheplaintiff'sresidenceinaparticularStatenecessarilyorconclusively proveshimtobeacitizenofthatState,withinthemeaningoftheConstitution,but onlythatageneralallegationofresidence,withoutindicatingthecharacterofsuch residence,whethertemporaryorpermanent,madeaprimafaciecaseofrighttosue intheFederalcourts.AsthejurisdictionoftheCircuitCourtislimitedinthe sensethatithasnoneexceptthatconferredbytheConstitutionandlawsofthe UnitedStates,thepresumptionnow,aswellasbeforetheadoptionofthe FourteenthAmendment,is,thatacauseiswithoutitsjurisdictionunlessthe contraryaffirmativelyappears.Incaseswherejurisdictiondependsuponthe citizenshipoftheparties,suchcitizenship,orthefactswhichinlegal intendmentconstituteit,shouldbedistinctlyandpositivelyaverredinthe pleadings,ortheyshouldappearaffirmatively,andwithequaldistinctness,in otherpartsoftherecord.Andsowherejurisdictiondependsuponthealienageof oneoftheparties.InBrownv.Keene(8Pet.115),Mr.ChiefJusticeMarshallsaid: Thedecisionsofthiscourtrequirethattheavermentofjurisdictionshallbe positive,thatthedeclarationshallstateexpresslythefactonwhichjurisdiction depends.Itisnotsufficientthatjurisdictionmaybeinferredargumentativelyfrom itsaverments.Heretheonlyfactaverred,orappearingfromtherecord,isthat CeasewasaresidentofIllinois;andweare,ineffect,asked,insupportofthe jurisdictionofthecourtbelow,toinferargumentatively,fromthemereallegationof residence,that,ifnotanalien,hehadafixedpermanentdomicileinthatState,and wasanativeornaturalizedcitizenoftheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothe jurisdictionthereof.Bysuchargumentativeinferences,itiscontendedthatwe shouldascertainthefact,vitaltothejurisdictionofthecourt,ofhiscitizenshipin someStateotherthanthatinwhichthesuitwasbrought.Weperceivenothingin eitherthelanguageorpolicyoftheFourteenthAmendmentwhichrequiresor justifiesusinholdingthatthebareavermentoftheresidenceofthepartiesis sufficient,primafacie,toshowjurisdiction.Thejudgmentmust,therefore,be reversed,uponthegroundthatitdoesnotaffirmativelyappearfromtherecordthat thedefendantinerrorwasentitledtosueintheCircuitCourt.Robertsonv.Cease: 97U.S.646,at648thru650(1878).{AftertheFourteenthAmendment}[Footnote 3]
http://books.google.com/books?id=utkFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA648#v=onepage&q&f=false
County,Florida,andthathehasbeenengagedinthisbusinessforthepastseveral years.Appellanthasnotassertedorattemptedtoshowthatheisnotacitizen oftheUnitedStates,orthatheisacitizenofanyStateotherthanFlorida,orthat heisanationalofanyforeigncountry.Itisalsosignificantthatinhisbriefin thisCourt,replyingtotheState'sargumentthatasacitizenofFloridaheisnot inapositiontoquestiontheboundariesoftheStateasdefinedbyits constitution,appellanthasnotchallengedthestatementastohiscitizenship, whilehedoescontestthelegalconsequenceswhichtheStateinsistsflowfrom thatfact. Itfurtherappearsthatuponappellant'sarrestforviolationofthestatute,he suedoutawritofhabeascorpusintheDistrictCourtoftheUnitedStatesandwas released,butthisdecisionwasreversedbytheCircuitCourtofAppeals. Cunninghamv.Skiriotes,101F.2d635.Thatcourtthoughtthatthequestionofthe statute'svalidityshouldbedeterminedinorderlyprocedurebythestatecourt subjecttoappropriatereviewbythisCourt,butthecourtexpresseddoubtastothe rightoftheappellanttoraisethequestion,saying:Skiriotesstatesheisacitizenof theUnitedStatesresidentinFlorida,andthereforeisacitizenofFlorida.His boat,fromwhichhisdivingoperationswereconducted,wemayassumewasa Floridavessel,carryingFloridalawwithher,butofcourseasmodifiedbysuperior federallaw.Id.,pp.636,637. Inthelightofappellant'sstatementstothefederalcourt,judiciallyrecited, anduponthepresentrecordshowinghislongresidenceinFloridaandthe absenceofaclaimofanyotherdomicileorofanyforeignallegiance,weare justifiedinassumingthatheisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesandofFlorida. Certainlyappellanthasnotshownhimselfentitledtoanygreaterrightsthan thosewhichacitizenofFloridapossesses.Skiriotesv.StateofFlorida:313U.S. 69,at71thru72(1941).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9757650854292938204
Inansweringthequestion,whethertheCircuitCourthadjurisdictionofthe controversy,wemustputourselvesintheplaceoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,and decidethequestionwithreferencetothetranscriptofrecordinthatcourt. HadthetranscriptshownnothingmoreastothestatusofEdwardsthanthe avermentofthecomplaintthathewasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,assuch anavermentwouldnotnecessarilyhaveimportedthatEdwardswasacitizenof Delaware,anegativeanswerwouldhavebeenimpelledbypriordecisions.Mexican CentralRy.Co.v.Duthie,189U.S.76;Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,155U.S.393; Dennyv.Pironi,141U.S.121;Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.646.Thewholerecord, however,maybelookedto,forthepurposeofcuringadefectiveavermentof citizenship,wherejurisdictioninaFederalcourtisassertedtodependupon diversityofcitizenship,andiftherequisitecitizenship,isanywhereexpressly averredintherecord,orfactsarethereinstatedwhichinlegalintendment constitutesuchallegation,thatissufficient.Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,supra andcasescited. Asthisisanactionatlaw,weareboundtoassumethatthetestimonyofthe plaintiffcontainedinthecertificateoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,andrecitedto havebeengivenonthetrial,waspreservedinabillofexceptions,whichformed partofthetranscriptofrecordfiledintheCircuitCourtofAppeals.Beingapartof therecord,andpropertoberesortedtoinsettlingaquestionofthecharacterof thatnowunderconsideration,Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.648,wecometoascertain whatisestablishedbytheuncontradictedevidencereferredto. Inthefirstplace,itshowsthatEdwards,priortohisemploymentontheNew YorkSunandtheNewHavenPalladium,waslegallydomiciledintheStateof Delaware.Next,itdemonstratesthathehadnointentiontoabandonsuchdomicil, forhetestifiedunderoathasfollows:OneofthereasonsIlefttheNewHaven Palladiumwas,itwastoofarawayfromhome.IlivedinDelaware,andIhadtogo backandforth.MyfamilyareoverinDelaware.Now,itiselementarythat,toeffect achangeofoneslegaldomicil,twothingsareindispensable:First,residenceina newdomicil,and,second,theintentiontoremainthere.Thechangecannotbe made,exceptfactoetanimo.Botharealikenecessary.Eitherwithouttheotheris insufficient.Mereabsencefromafixedhome,howeverlongcontinued,cannotwork thechange.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall.350. AsDelawaremust,then,beheldtohavebeenthelegaldomicilofEdwardsatthe timehecommencedthisaction,haditappeared[Footnote4]thathewasa citizenoftheUnitedStates,itwouldhaveresulted,byoperationofthe FourteenthAmendment,thatEdwardswasalsoacitizenoftheStateof Delaware.Andersonv.Watt,138U.S.694.Bethisasitmay,however,Delaware beingthelegaldomicilofEdwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizen ofanotherState,District,orTerritory,andhemustthenhavebeeneitheracitizenof DelawareoracitizenorsubjectofaforeignState.Ineitherofthesecontingencies, 6
4.Thatis,fromtheavermentofcitizenshiporotherpartsoftherecord.