Summary

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Lehigh Nin Manufacturing Company v…

What, in such a case, would have become of the long-settled rule that the status, as to citizenship, of the individual stockholders is not a matter of allegation and proof? Has the court retraced its steps, and can state corporations be turned out of the federal courts on a plea that one or more of the stockholders is a citizen of the same state in which the litigation is pending?
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Lehigh Nin Manufacturing Company v…

Wheeler, 1 Black, 296, the court, speaking by Chief Justice Taney said: 'Where a corporation is created by the laws of a state, the legal presumption is that its members are citizens of the state which created the corporate body; that a suit by or against a corporation, in its corporate name, must be presumed to be a suit by or against citizens of the state which created the corporate body; and that no averment or evidence to the contrary is admissible for the purpose of withdrawing the suit from the jurisdiction of a court of the United States.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Lehigh Nin Manufacturing Company v…

If we are permitted to enter into the realm of supposition, it is easy to suggest that the present stockholders, so far as they are citizens of Virginia, might dispose of their stock in good faith and absolutely to citizens of Pennsylvania. Then, upon another action brought in the same court, the same pleas being interposed, it would be competent, according to the views which prevail in the present case, to meet the pleas by a replication averring that the individual stockholders are citizens of Pennsylvania, and thus the jurisdiction would be sustained.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature