Hyperlawhypertext legal database Mason v. Rollins 80 U.S. 602

← Cases

Mason v. Rollins

80 U.S. 602 13 Wall. 602 Court SCOTUS English

Delivered by The CHIEF JUSTICE

Contents

Majority

p. 602
Mason v. Rollins et al.

Syllabus

Three appeals in equity against collectors and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue dismissed, the pleadings not showing the citizenship required by the Judiciary Act; and the bills having been all filed subsequently to the 13th July, 1866, when the act of 1833, which gave jurisdiction to the courts of the United States of suits under the Internal Revenue Acts against collectors and others, without regard to citizenship, was repealed.
Motion by Mr. C. H. Hill, Assistant Attorney-General (Mr. Edioard Roby, opposing), to dismiss three appeals from the Circuit Ccurt for the Northern District of Illinois; the appeals being from decrees in equity dismissing the cases for want of jurisdiction.
The first bill described the complainant as a citizen of the State of Illinois, and one defendant (Rollins) as of the District of Columbia, and a citizen of the State of-, and other defendants (Allen and Ferguson) as citizens of the State of Illinois.
The second bill described the plaintiff as a citizen of the State of Illinois, and three defendants (Mann, Allen, and Ferguson) as citizens of the State of Illinois, and one defendant (Delano) as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, without averring that he was a citizén of any State.
The third bill described the plaintiff as a citizen of the State of Illinois, and did not aver that any of the defendants were citizens of any other State.
All the bills were filed subsequently to the 13th July, 1866, when the act of 1833, which gave jurisdiction to the courts of the United States of suits under the Internal Revenue Acts against collectors and others, without regard to citizenship, was repealed.[1]

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is manifest that the averments of citizenship in neither

p. 603
of the bills are sufficient to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789; and all were filed subsequent to the 13th of July, 1866.

When these suits were brought, therefore, there was no act in force giving jurisdiction, in cases such as those made by the records, to the courts of the United States. The Circuit Court was obliged, therefore, to dismiss the bill in each case for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment of that court in the several cases must be

Affirmed.