Herndon v. Lancashire Insurance

*193 MerbimoN, C. J. after stating the facts: It is settled, by many authoritative adjudications, that a civil action pending in a State Court as to which the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States cannot arise or attach, unless the parties plaintiff and defendant therein, respectively, are citizens of different States, is not removable into such Circuit Court unless such diverse citizenship shall distinctly appear to have existed at the time when the action began, as well as when the removal was applied for, and it must appear affirmatively, from positive averments in the petition for removal, or likewise affirmatively, and with equal distinctness, in the record, or it may appear from what appears in the petition and the record taken together. Gibson v. Bruce, 108 U. S. R., 561; Grove v. Insurance Co., 109 U. S. R., 278; Railway v. Snow, 111 U. S. R., 379; Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. R., 118; Akers v. Akers, 117 U. S. R., 197; Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. R., 229; Stevens v. Nichols, 130 U. S. R., 230; Cuhose v. Railroad, 131 U. S. R., 240; Jackson v. Allen, 132 U. S. R , 27; Blackwell v. Moorman, decided at the present term of this Court. It does not appear, from the petition, that the diverse citizenship of the parties therein alleged existed at the time the action began — it is simply alleged as existing at the time the petition was filed. This is not sufficient. Stevens v. Nichols, supra; Blackwell v. Moorman, supra. Nor does such diverse citizenship appear from the record. It is alleged in the complaint, simply, that the plaintiffs are residents of the States mentioned. But this does not imply that they are citizens of those States, and citizenship thereof must be alleged, or appear in some way sufficiently. The petition alleges citizenship at the time the petition was filed. But it may be that the parties acquired such citizenship after the action began, and with the view to raise the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Nor can the positive affirmative allegation of citizenship in the petition for removal help or enlarge the *194 allegation of mere residence in the complaint, because residence does not imply citizeuship for thepurpose of giving such jurisdiction. Moreover, the allegation of the residence of the parties in the complaint was not necessary in the pleading in the State Court, nor was it intended to thereby allege citizenship- — -it was merely descriptive of the parties, and intended to identify them — it might have been omitted altogether. It cannot be inferred that the purpose was to allege citizenship, and not mere residence. Parker v. Overman, 18 Howard (U. S.), 137; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. R., 646; Grose v. Central Insurance Co., 109 U. S. R., 278. Inasmuch as it did not appear from the petition for removal of the action, nor from the record of the latter, that the diverse citizenship of the parties necessary to give the Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction thereof existed at the time the action began, the Court properly denied the petitioner’s motion There is ho error. Affirmed.