Stuart v. Easton

: Plaintiff in error is described throughout the record as “ a citizen of London, England,” and the defendants as “corporations of the State of Pennsylvania.” As the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court confessedly depended on the alienage of plaintiff in error, and that fact was not made affirmatively to appear, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of plaintiff in error, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court with leave to apply for amendment and for further proceedings. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382; Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 125; Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136; Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 115; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Börs v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252, 263; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U. S. 393.

Judgment reversed.