Chapman v. Barney

129 U.S. 677 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1889

Facts

The United States Express Company, a joint stock company, sued Herman B. Chapman for $14,000. After an amendment changing the plaintiff to its president and the action to trover, Chapman was imprisoned for perjury. The trial proceeded without notice to Chapman, without a plea from him, and without an issue being joined, resulting in a default judgment against him.

Procedural history

The United States Express Company initially filed an action of assumpsit in the Circuit Court against Chapman. Chapman responded with two defenses, including nul tiel corporation. The company was later granted leave to amend its declaration, changing the action to trover and substituting Ashbel H. Barney, its president, as the named plaintiff. A trial proceeded without Chapman or his attorney present, and without a plea to the amended declaration, resulting in a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $14,000. Chapman subsequently filed a bond for a writ of error to the Supreme Court to reverse this judgment.

Issue

Did the trial court err by proceeding to judgment without an issue joined and without proper notice to the imprisoned defendant? More importantly, did the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship when the plaintiff was a joint stock company whose members' citizenship was not alleged?

Holding

Yes, the trial court erred by proceeding to judgment without an issue joined and proper notice. More critically, the Supreme Court held that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff, a joint stock company, failed to properly allege the citizenship of all its members to establish diversity. The judgment was reversed.

Rule

For diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of all members of a joint stock company (treated as a partnership) must be distinctly and positively averred. A federal court cannot proceed to trial and judgment without an issue joined or proper notice to the defendant, especially when the defendant is imprisoned.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.