207:, to come within the description of "occupiers or inhabitants." In that case, the poor rates, to which the lands of the corporation were declared to be liable, were not assessed to the actual occupant, for there was none, but to the corporation. And the principle established by the case appears to be that the poor rates on vacant ground belonging to a corporation may be assessed to the corporation as being inhabitants or occupiers of that ground. In this case
182:, the jurisdiction of the circuit courts is extended to cases where the constitutional right to plead and be impleaded in the courts of the union depends on the character of the parties; but where that right depends on the nature of the case, the circuit courts derive no jurisdiction from that act except in the single case of a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants from different states.
159:
description, it is not less true that the
Constitution itself either entertains apprehensions on this subject or views with such indulgence the possible fears and apprehensions of suitors that it has established national tribunals for the decision of controversies between aliens and a citizen or between citizens of different states.
245:
had in terms enacted that incorporated aliens might sue a citizen or that the incorporated citizens of one state might sue a citizen of another state in the federal courts by its corporate name, this Court would not have felt itself justified in declaring that such a law transcended the
Constitution.
143:
Where the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States depends not on the character of the parties, but upon the nature of the case, the circuit courts derive no jurisdiction from the
Judiciary Act except in case of a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants from
229:
brought a suit against Wood by its corporate name in the mayor's court. The suit was brought by the mayor and commonalty, and was tried before the mayor and aldermen. The judgment rendered in this cause was brought before the Court of King's bench and reversed because the court was deprived of its
192:
As our ideas of a corporation, its privileges, and its disabilities, are derived entirely from the
English books, we resort to them for aid in ascertaining its character. It is defined as a mere creature of the law, invisible, intangible, and incorporeal. Yet when we examine the subject further we
158:
The
Judicial Department was introduced into the American Constitution under impressions and with views which are too apparent not to be perceived by all. However true the fact may be that the tribunals of the states will administer justice as impartially as those of the nation to parties of every
150:
The duties of this Court to exercise jurisdiction where it is conferred and not to usurp it where it is not conferred are of equal obligation. The
Constitution therefore and the law are to be expounded without a leaning the one way or the other, according to those general principles which usually
70:
The court ruled that corporations composed of citizens from one state may sue on behalf of those citizens in circuit court citizens from another state. The court specifies that while corporations may sue on behalf of citizens, corporations cannot be citizens. In other words, the court ruled that
233:
In that case, the objection, that a corporation was an invisible, intangible thing, a mere incorporeal legal entity in which the characters of the individuals who composed it were completely merged, was urged and was considered. The judges unanimously declared that they could look beyond the
185:
Unless, then, jurisdiction over this cause has been given to the circuit court by some other than the
Judicial Act, the Bank of the United States had not a right to sue in that court upon the principle that the case arises under a law of the United States...
237:
The case of Mayor and
Commonalty v. Wood is the stronger, because it is on the point of jurisdiction. It appears to the Court to be a full authority for the case now under consideration. It seems not possible to distinguish them from each other.
154:
A constitution, from its nature, deals in generals, not in detail. Its framers cannot perceive minute distinctions which arise in the progress of the nation, and therefore confine it to the establishment of broad and general principles.
63:. It was the first Supreme Court case to examine corporate rights and, while it is rarely featured prominently in US legal history, it set an important precedent for the legal rights of corporations, particularly with regard to
218:
These opinions are not precisely in point, but they serve to show that for the general purposes and objects of a law, this invisible, incorporeal creature of the law may be considered as having corporeal qualities.
234:
corporate name and notice the character of the individual. In the opinions, which were delivered seriatim, several cases are put which serve to illustrate the principle, and fortify the decision.
255:
Being authorized to sue in it corporate name, it could make the averment, and it must apply to the plaintiffs as individuals, because it could not be true as applied to the corporation.
133:
95:, Jeffersonian Democrats in Georgia chose another route to fight back against the Bank: taxes. The lawmakers hoped that heavy taxes on the bank would drive it out of Georgia.
113:
branch of the Bank. The Bank sued
Deveaux in Federal court, circumventing the Georgia state court for fear of bias. The case came in front of the Supreme Court, headed by
147:
No right is conferred on the bank by its act of incorporation to sue in the federal courts. A corporation aggregate cannot, in its corporate capacity, be a citizen.
25:
106:
56:
140:
A corporation aggregate composed of citizens of one state may sue a citizen of another state in the circuit court of the United States.
398:
91:
and wanted to see it dissolved. However, because state governments lack the power to directly legislate federal institutions under the
83:
politicians first provoked a court case when, in 1805, they imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States' locally held capital. Many
393:
285:
408:
363:
319:
208:
252:
If a corporation may sue in the courts of the union, the Court is of opinion that the averment in this case is sufficient.
204:
168:
60:
102:, hoping that a conflict with the state would bring the question of corporate rights in front of the Supreme Court.
242:
193:
find that corporations have been included within terms of description appropriated to real persons.
403:
109:
decided to take matters into his own hands, forcibly confiscating two boxes of silver from the
84:
80:
52:
286:"Bank of the United States v. Deveaux and the Birth of Constitutional Rights for Corporations"
226:
179:
29:
212:
64:
8:
225:
There is a case, however, reported in 12 Mod., which is thought precisely in point. The
99:
230:
jurisdiction by the character of the individuals who were members of the corporation.
315:
110:
88:
338:
32:
265:
118:
92:
40:
36:
200:
129:
387:
171:
114:
71:
while only citizens may sue in court, they may do so under a corporate name.
105:
After the Bank refused to pay the new taxes, a
Georgian tax collector named
364:"Bank of United States v. Deveaux | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis"
44:
87:
strongly opposed the chartering of a national bank as a violation of
312:
We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights
48:
215:
that a corporation could not be an inhabitant or occupier.
151:
govern in the construction of fundamental or other laws.
339:"Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 9 U.S. 61 (1809)"
211:notices and overrules an inconsiderate dictum of
385:
98:The Bank decided to ignore the tax in an act of
314:. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 76–77.
199:In the case of King v. Gardner, reported by
134:Reporter of Decision of the Supreme Court
136:, summarized the decision of the court.
309:
283:
386:
333:
331:
305:
303:
203:, a corporation was decided, by the
21:Bank of the United States v. Deveaux
13:
14:
420:
399:United States Supreme Court cases
328:
300:
394:United States corporate case law
290:Journal of Supreme Court History
409:1809 in United States case law
356:
277:
1:
243:Congress of the United States
74:
7:
259:
174:gave the leading decision.
163:
124:
121:and supporter of the bank.
10:
425:
61:United States Constitution
16:1809 US corporate law case
296:– via Hein Online.
271:
35: (1809) is an early
310:Winkler, Adam (2018).
284:Winkler, Adam (2018).
257:
161:
85:Jeffersonian Democrats
227:Corporation of London
205:Court of King's Bench
176:
138:
59:, section two of the
47:have the capacity to
65:corporate personhood
53:grounds of diversity
51:in federal court on
39:case decided by the
144:different states.
100:civil disobedience
321:978-0-87140-384-1
416:
379:
378:
376:
374:
360:
354:
353:
351:
349:
335:
326:
325:
307:
298:
297:
281:
266:US corporate law
93:supremacy clause
41:US Supreme Court
37:US corporate law
424:
423:
419:
418:
417:
415:
414:
413:
384:
383:
382:
372:
370:
362:
361:
357:
347:
345:
337:
336:
329:
322:
308:
301:
282:
278:
274:
262:
166:
127:
77:
43:. It held that
17:
12:
11:
5:
422:
412:
411:
406:
401:
396:
381:
380:
355:
327:
320:
299:
275:
273:
270:
269:
268:
261:
258:
241:If, then, the
209:Lord Mansfield
165:
162:
130:William Cranch
126:
123:
76:
73:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
421:
410:
407:
405:
404:John Marshall
402:
400:
397:
395:
392:
391:
389:
369:
365:
359:
344:
340:
334:
332:
323:
317:
313:
306:
304:
295:
291:
287:
280:
276:
267:
264:
263:
256:
253:
250:
247:
244:
239:
235:
231:
228:
223:
220:
216:
214:
213:Justice Yates
210:
206:
202:
197:
194:
190:
187:
183:
181:
175:
173:
172:John Marshall
170:
169:Chief Justice
160:
156:
152:
148:
145:
141:
137:
135:
131:
122:
120:
116:
115:John Marshall
112:
108:
107:Peter Deveaux
103:
101:
96:
94:
90:
89:states rights
86:
82:
72:
68:
66:
62:
58:
57:article three
54:
50:
46:
42:
38:
34:
31:
27:
23:
22:
371:. Retrieved
367:
358:
346:. Retrieved
342:
311:
293:
289:
279:
254:
251:
248:
240:
236:
232:
224:
221:
217:
198:
195:
191:
188:
184:
180:Judicial Act
177:
167:
157:
153:
149:
146:
142:
139:
128:
104:
97:
81:Jeffersonian
78:
69:
45:corporations
20:
19:
18:
388:Categories
373:August 19,
343:Justia Law
119:Federalist
75:Background
368:Community
79:Georgian
348:June 17,
260:See also
164:Judgment
125:Syllabus
111:Savannah
178:By the
318:
201:Cowper
132:, the
55:under
272:Notes
28:
375:2021
350:2021
316:ISBN
249:...
222:...
196:...
189:...
117:, a
49:sue
390::
366:.
341:.
330:^
302:^
294:43
292:.
288:.
67:.
33:61
30:US
24:,
377:.
352:.
324:.
26:9
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.