CHRISTIAN BREITHAUPT, AND HENRY SHULTZ, DEFENDANTS BELOW,
v.
THE BANK OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, AND OTHERS

U.S. | 1828-01-01
1 Pet. 238 Supreme Court of the United States (1828) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 7 L. Ed. 127 · SCDB 1828-013 · 1828 U.S. LEXIS 403
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
By the Court

By the Court

This is not a case within the jurisdiction of • the Courts óf the United Státes.-.. The récord does not show, that the defendants were citizens of Georgia, nor are there any distinct allegations or averments, that the same was the fact, as to the stockholders in the bank.

This, cause came on, &c., on consideration whereof, This Court is of opinion, that as the bill does not aver that the cor-porators of the Bank of the State of Georgia, which bank is defendant in the suit,- are citizens of the state of Georgia, the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction of the cause, and can grant no .relief. It is therefore .ordered to be certified to the Circuit Court, as the opinion of this Court, that, in 'the present state of, the pleadings, it not appearing that the defendants are citizens of. the state of Georgia, the complainants are not entitled to relief in that Court.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1892)
    …ere, and were alleged to be, citizens of the State which created the corporation. Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61; Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch, 57; Sullivan v. Fulton Steamboat Co., 6 Wheat. 450; Breithaupt v. Bank of Georgia, 1 Pet. 238; Commercial Bank v. Slocomb, 14 Pet. 60. But in Louisville &c. Railroad v. Letson, in 1844, it was adjudged, upon great consideration, that it is sufficient to sustain the jurisdiction that the corporation is created by a different State from that…
  • Marshall v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 16 How. 314 (U.S. 1853)
    …by time and authority in all then integrity. The declaration before us describes the defendant “ as a body corporate by act of the General Assembly of Maryland,” and cor- '• responds therefore with the cases cited from 5 Cranch, 57; 6 Wheat. 450 ; 1 Pet. 238; and in those cases jurisdiction was first questioned and disclaimed in this court. These cases were not cited in Letson’s case, and are decisive of this. If we search the record for facts to sustain the jurisdiction, we can collect that the defend…
  • Doctor v. Harrington, 196 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1905)

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw