Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Company

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. By the second section of the third article of the Constitu-' tion it is ordained that the judicial power shall extend “to all controversies between a State and the citizens of another State.” The second clause of this section provides “that in all cases affecting ambassadors, &c., and those in which a State shall be a. party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. . . In all other cases before mentioned it shall have appellate jurisdiction.” *556 This second clause distributes the jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court in the previous one into original and appellate jurisdiction; but does not profess to confer any. • • The thirteenth section of the Judiciary Act, * which provides for the jurisdiction of this court, accords with this construction. ..... Á State, therefore, may bring a suit, by virtue of its original jurisdiction, against a citizen of another State, but not against one of her own. And the.question in this.case is whether it is sufficiently disclosed in the declaration that this suit is brought against a citizen of California. And this turns upon another question, and that is, whether the averment there imports that the defendant is a corporation created by the laws of that State; for, unless it is, it does not partake of the character of a citizen within the meaning of the cases on this subject. † The court is of opinion that this averment is insufficient to establish that the defendant is a California corporation. It may mean that the defendant is a corporation doing business in that State by its agent; but not that it had been incorporated by the laws of the State. It would have been very easy t.o have made the fact clear by averment, aud, being a jurisdictional fact, it should not have been left in doubt. Indeed, it was admitted in the argument that the defendant was a Pennsylvania corporation, and the jurisdiction sought to be sustained by a suit against this agency. We have already shown that this" is unavailable to support the jurisdiction. Motion granted, and the Writ dismissed. Footnotes [*] Quoted supra. [†] Marshall v. The Baltimore and Ohio R. R. Co., 16 Howard, 314, and cases there cited.