U.S. Supreme Court
CAPRON
v. VAN NOORDEN, 6 U.S. 126 (1804)
6 U.S. 126 (Cranch)
CAPRON
v.
VAN NOORDEN.
February Term, 1804
Harper,
for the plaintiff in error, stated the only question to be whether
the plaintiff had a right to assign for error, the want of
jurisdiction in that Court to which he had chosen to resort.
ERROR to the Circuit Court of North-Carolina. The proceedings
stated Van Noorden to be late of Pitt county, but did not allege
Capron, the plaintiff, to be an alien, nor a citizen of any state,
nor the place of his residence.
Upon the general issue, in an action of trespass on the case, a
verdict was found for the defendant, Van Noorden, upon which
judgment was rendered.
The writ of Error was sued out by Capron, the plaintiff below, who
assigned for error, among other things, first "That the circuit
court aforesaid is a court "of limited jurisdiction, and that by
the record aforesaid "it doth not appear, as it ought to have done,
that "either the said George Capron, or the said Hadrianus " Van
Noorden was an alien at the time of the commencement "of said suit,
or at any other time, or that one of "the said parties was at that
or any other time, a citizen "of the state of North-Carolina where
the suit was "brought, and the other a citizen of another state; or
"that they the said George and Hadrianus were for "any cause
whatever, persons within the jurisdiction of "the said court, and
capable of suing and being sued "there."
And secondly, "That by the record aforesaid it manifestly
"appeareth that the said Circuit Court had not "any jurisdiction of
the cause aforesaid, nor ought to "have held plea thereof, or given
judgment therein, but "ought to have dismissed the same, whereas
the said "Court hath proceeded to final judgment therein."
It is true, as a general rule, that a man cannot reverse a judgment
for error in process or delay, unless he can shew that the error
was to his disadvantage; but it is also a rule, that he may reverse
a judgment for an error of the Court, even though it be for his
advantage. As if a verdict be found for the debt, damages, and
costs; and the judgment be only for the debt and damages, the
defendant may assign for error that the judgment was not also for
costs, although the error is for his advantage.
Here it was the duty of the Court to see that they had
jurisdiction, for the consent of parties could not give it.
It is therefore an error of the Court, and the plaintiff has a
right to take advantage of it. 2 Bac. Ab. Tit. Error. (K. 4.)
— 8 Co. 59. (a) Beecher's case.
— 1 Roll. Ab. 759. — Moor
692. — 1 Lev. 289. Bernard v. Bernard.
The defendant in error did not appear, but the citation having been
duly served, the judgment was reversed.
