Toledo Traction Co. v. Cameron

Citations

• 137 F. 48
• 14 Ohio F. Dec. 641
• 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4538

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction op Federal Court—Diversity op Citizenship—Minor Suing bt Guardian.</p> <p>Where the plaintiff is a minor suing, by his guardian, the question of the jurisdiction of a federal court is determined by his own citizenship, and net that of his guardian, which is immaterial.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 13,' Cent. Dig. Courts, § 858.</p> <p>Diverse citizenship as a ground of federal jurisdiction, see notes to Shipp v. Williams, 10 C. C. A. 249; Mason v. Dullagham, 27 C. C. A. 298.]</p> <p>2. Same—Allegation op Citizenship.</p> <p>An allegation in a petition that plaintiff is a citizen “of said county of Monroe, in the said state of Michigan,” while inexact as an averment of citizenship of the state of Michigan for the purpose of showing jurisdiction in a federal court, will be treated as sufficient, especially in an appellate court, when it has been so construed and treated by both court and counsel in the trial court, which made a finding of the fact in accordance therewith.</p> <p>3. Same—Eppect op Insupficient Averment in Amended Petition.</p> <p>Where the original petition in an action contains the requisite averments to give a federal court jurisdiction, such jurisdiction is not lost because an amended petition alleges plaintiff’s citizenship in the present tense only.</p> <p>4. Same—Issue as to Citizenship—Conclusiveness op Verdict.</p> <p>An averment of plaintiff’s citizenship in an action in a federal court, in which jurisdiction depends on diversity of citizenship, is a_ material allegation, within the meaning of the Ohio Code, and is put in issue, under such Code, by a general denial in the answer; and a general verdict finding the issues in favor of plaintiff, followed by judgment thereon, is conclusive on such issue as against a defendant who has participated in the trial without objecting to the jurisdiction, or asking any ruling or instruction on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence on the issue.</p> <p>6. Same