Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Stuart Vs. Easton

Stuart vs Easton

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jan-21-1895
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/87952

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
156 U.S. 46
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Stuart

Respondent

Easton

Excerpt

stuart v. easton - 156 u.s. 46 (1895) u.s. supreme court stuart v. easton, 156 u.s. 46 (1895) stuart v. easton no. 151 argued january 15, 1895 decided january 21, 1895 156 u.s. 46 error to the circuit court of the united states for the eastern district of pennsylvania syllabus an averment that the plaintiff is "a 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. chief justice fuller. 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 page 156 u. s. 47 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. cabbot, 3 dall. 382; mossman v. higginson, 4 dall. 12; capron v. van noorden, 2 cranch 126; jackson v. twentyman, 2 pet. 136; connolly v. taylor, 2 pet. 556; brown v. keene, 8 pet. 115; robertson v. cease, 97 u. s. 646 ; boers v. preston, 111 u. s. 252 , 111 u. s. 263 ; denny v. pironi, 141 u. s. 121 ; horne v. george h. hammond co., 155 u. s. 393 . judgment reversed.

Full Judgment

Stuart v. Easton - 156 U.S. 46 (1895)
U.S. Supreme Court Stuart v. Easton, 156 U.S. 46 (1895)

Stuart v. Easton

No. 151

Argued January 15, 1895

Decided January 21, 1895

156 U.S. 46

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SYLLABUS

An averment that the plaintiff is "a 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. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER.

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

Page 156 U. S. 47

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. Cabbot, 3 Dall. 382; Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126; Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136; Connolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 115; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646 ; Boers v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252 , 111 U. S. 263 ; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121 ; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U. S. 393 .

Judgment reversed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial