THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
GEORGE B. MARTIN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Bank of the United States brought suit in federal district court in Alabama, but the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that district courts in Alabama possessed only the same jurisdiction as the Kentucky district court under the 1789 Judiciary Act, which did not grant jurisdiction over suits brought by the Bank of the United States, as the Bank did not exist when the original act was passed and prior precedent required special pleading to pierce the Bank's corporate character.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Marshall, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court. — This is a writ of error to a judgment rendered in the court of the United States for the district of Alabama, dismissing a suit brought by the Bank of the United States, in that court, for want of jurisdiction. Consequently, the jurisdiction of that coux’t presents the only question tobe considered.
The act, which establishes a district court in the state of Alabama, declares, that the judge thereof “ shall in all things have and exercise the same jurisdiction and powers which were by law given to the judge of the Kentucky district, under an act entitled, ‘an act to establish the judicial courts of the United States,’ and an act entitled, ‘an act in addition to the act entitled an act to establish the judicial courts of the United States,’ ” approved the 2d of March 1793. The 10th section of the judiciary act pro-*4sn'l ^e *distx*iot court in Kentucky shall, besides the jurisdic-I tion aforesaid, have jurisdiction of all other causes, except appeals and writs of eiTor hereinafter made cognisable in a circuit court, and shall proceed thei’ein in the same manner as a circuit court.” The 11th section of the same act desci’ibes the jurisdiction of the circuit court. A bank of the United States did not then exist ; and it was determined by this court in the case of the Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, “ that the courts of the United States could not take jurisdiction of actions brought by the bank, unless the declaration contained averments which enabled the court to look behind the corporate character of the plaintiff.”
The judiciary act, not having given the circuits courts jurisdiction over causes instituted by the Bank of the United States, cannot be construed to have given that jurisdiction to the district court of Kentucky. Of course, ' it has not been conferred on the district court of Alabama, by the act establishing that court. Neither has it been conferred by the act establishing the Bank of the United States. The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
This cause came on to be heard, on the transcript of the record from the district court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama, and was argued by counsel: On consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court, that there was no error in the judgment of the said district court, in dismissing this cause, for want of jurisdiction; whereupon it is considered, ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said district court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.