Capron v. Van Noorden

Supreme Court of United States
6 U.S. 126 (1804)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by the consent of the parties. A judgment from a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is void, and this defect can be raised at any time, even by the party who originally invoked the court's jurisdiction.

Facts:

A dispute arose between Capron and Van Noorden.
Capron filed a lawsuit against Van Noorden in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of North Carolina.
The formal complaint and other court filings (the record) failed to allege the citizenship of either Capron or Van Noorden.
This omission meant the record did not establish the required diversity of citizenship for the federal court to have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.

Procedural Posture:

Capron filed a lawsuit against Van Noorden in the United States Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina, a federal trial court.
The Circuit Court entered a judgment against the plaintiff, Capron.
Capron (as plaintiff in error) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of the United States, arguing the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction.
Van Noorden (as defendant in error) did not appear before the Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Can a judgment be reversed on appeal based on a federal court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, even when the party who initiated the lawsuit and lost is the one raising the jurisdictional error?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes. A judgment can be reversed because federal courts have a duty to ensure they have subject-matter jurisdiction, and the consent of the parties cannot grant it. The court reasoned that while a party cannot typically reverse a judgment for an error that was to their advantage, they may reverse a judgment for an error of the court. Proceeding without subject-matter jurisdiction is a fundamental error of the court itself. Therefore, the plaintiff who initiated the case has the right to take advantage of this error on appeal to have the unfavorable judgment against him reversed.

Analysis:

This is a foundational case in federal civil procedure establishing that subject-matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable, constitutional limitation on the power of federal courts. The decision solidifies the principle that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have an independent obligation to verify their authority to hear a case. It confirms that a jurisdictional defect is fatal to a judgment and can be raised at any stage of litigation, by any party, or by the court itself, ensuring federal courts do not overstep their prescribed constitutional bounds.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Capron v. Van Noorden (1804)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"