Morris v. Gilmer

129 U.S. 315 (1889)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On the 7th of July, 1884, P, who was then, and during all his previous life had been, a citizen of Alabama, instituted a suit in equity, in one of the Chancery Courts of that State, against Ds. The dispute was over the transfer of stock. P sought a decree declaring that the transfer, by P to D of sixty shares of the capital stock of the Elyton Land Company, an Alabama corporation, was made in trust and as collateral security for the payment of a debt due from P to Ds. P also sought an accounting in respect to the amount of that debt, the value of the stock, and the dividends thereon received by Ds; and directing him upon the payment of the debt and interest, or so much thereof as appeared to be unpaid, to transfer sixty shares of the stock to P, and pay over any dividends received in excess of the debt due from the latter. The suit was dismissed by the Chancery Court holding that the claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Alabama, on the 27th of January, 1886. The dismissal was without prejudice to another suit. P sued again on September 20, 1886, in the Circuit Court claiming to be a citizen of Tennessee, against Ds and asking for the same relief as in the state court suit. P now claimed diversity jurisdiction in the federal court. Ds answered the suit. On December 16, 1887, D filed in the cause the affidavit of A. S. Gerald to the effect that, in a conversation held by him with P on or about November 14, 1887, the latter informed him 'that he had returned to the city of Montgomery to reside permanently, and had been living here with that intent some time previous to said conversation;' and also his own affidavit to the effect that he had been informed and believed that the plaintiff returned to the city of Montgomery 'sometime in the latter part of May or early part of June 1887, with the purpose and intent of permanently residing in the State of Alabama, and has continuously resided in said State of Alabama ever since said time.' Ds claimed that P moved to Tennessee only to establish diversity and had fully intended to move back to Alabama. Ds claimed P lacked the intent to be a citizen of Tennessee and therefore diversity did not exist. The court denied Ds’ motion and Ds appealed.