Ready to print. Press Ctrl+P (⌘+P on Mac), or
CaseSearch
Open CaseSearch appOpen app

Marks v. Marks

Not specified
Decided Circuit Court, D. Tennessee
Disposition
affirmed
full scope · unanimous
Scan to open on mobileScan to open on another device
Court
Chancery court at Winchester, Tenn. and United States circuit court at Nashville, Tenn.
Decided
Judge
CLARK, District Judge
Posture
Two equity suits filed on same day: one in state chancery court (removed to federal court), one in federal circuit court
Plaintiff in federal suits (3)
Albert S. Marks, Jr. (infant, by next friend Mr. Gholson)
R. H. Burney
v.
Defendants in federal suits (2)
Albert D. Marks and Mrs. Novella Marks
W. L. Granbery
Other parties: Mrs. Gholson (formerly Mrs. Marks, née Hunt) — Defendant in state suit, mother of infant plaintiff, Mr. Gholson — Defendant in state suit, second husband of Mrs. Gholson, Roy Fitzpatrick — Alleged guardian of infant in state suit

Overview

The motion to remand and plea to jurisdiction are overruled. Jurisdiction exists based on diverse citizenship. The court orders that the two parallel suits be consolidated, with the plaintiff in the federal-originated suit given leave to dismiss and file a cross-bill in the removed state suit, or alternatively, the defendant in the federal suit may plead the pendency of the first-filed state suit as a defense.

Case summary

This case involves jurisdictional disputes in two parallel equity suits concerning the administration of a trust estate. The central issue is whether infant Albert S. Marks Jr. was a citizen of Texas at the time suits were filed, which would establish diversity jurisdiction in federal court. The infant's mother, Mrs. Gholson, was born in Texas (domicile of origin), married a Tennessee citizen, and after his death decided to return permanently to Texas with her infant son. She arrived in Texas on May 3, 1895, with the fixed intention of making Texas her permanent home, though without planning a fixed local residence. She married Mr. Gholson on May 5, 1895. The court holds that: (1) citizenship for diversity purposes requires only physical presence in a state plus intent to remain permanently; (2) no fixed local residence or specific time period is required; (3) the infant instantly became a Texas citizen when his mother arrived in Texas with animus manendi; (4) the mother's subsequent marriage did not alter the infant's already-established Texas domicile; and (5) venue provisions are waivable personal privileges, not jurisdictional limits. The court finds diversity jurisdiction exists and addresses case management of the two parallel suits.

Abstract

The case concerns jurisdictional disputes in two parallel equity suits over trust estate administration, centering on whether an infant acquired Texas citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes upon his mother's physical arrival in Texas with intent to remain permanently, despite lacking a fixed local residence. The court holds that citizenship requires only presence and animus manendi, which the infant instantly acquired, unaffected by his mother's subsequent marriage, thus establishing federal jurisdiction. Venue issues are waivable, motions to remand are denied, and the suits are ordered consolidated with procedural options for cross-bills or defenses based on pendency.

Opinion of the court

Majority
opinionCLARK, District Judge
  • Citizenship for diversity jurisdiction requires only presence plus animus manendi
  • No fixed local residence or time period required
  • Infant's domicile follows mother's until her remarriage
  • Venue provisions are waivable personal privileges
  • Parallel suits should be consolidated to avoid duplication

Jurisdiction

challenged
Statutory basis
Article 3, § 2 of U.S. Constitution and Judiciary Acts of Congress
Subject matter
Diversity jurisdiction - controversies between citizens of different states
Jurisdictional holding
Court finds jurisdiction exists based on diverse citizenship; motion to remand denied and plea to jurisdiction overruled
Jurisdictional facts
  • Infant plaintiff alleges Texas citizenship
  • Defendants are citizens of Tennessee
  • Amount in dispute meets jurisdictional threshold

Procedural posture

Posture at trial
Two equity suits filed on same day: one in state chancery court (removed to federal court), one in federal circuit court
Posture on appeal
Not an appeal - district court ruling on jurisdictional challenges and case management
Preserved issues
  • Jurisdiction based on diverse citizenship
  • Proper venue under judiciary act
  • Effect of pending state court suit
Forfeited issues
  • Objection to venue not seasonably taken is waived

Legal categories

BusinessEstate Planning and Real Estate

Case record

Full case name
MARKS et al. v. MARKS et al. MARKS v. GHOLSON et al.
Docket number
Not specified
Court
Circuit Court, D. Tennessee
Trial court
Chancery court at Winchester, Tenn. and United States circuit court at Nashville, Tenn.
Trial court judge
CLARK, District Judge
Decided
Opinion author
CLARK, District Judge
Opinion type
published
Precedential status
persuasive
Judges on panel
CLARK, District Judge

Issues & holdings

3
Issues raised
3
affirmed
3
Holdings
Standard of review

De novo (jurisdictional facts)

Disposition rationale

Court finds infant became Texas citizen when mother arrived in Texas with intent to remain permanently

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Standard of review

De novo (legal question)

Disposition rationale

Court holds fixed local residence not required; physical presence with animus manendi suffices

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Standard of review

De novo (legal question)

Disposition rationale

Venue provision is personal privilege that can be waived, not jurisdictional requirement

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Holdings of the court

Requirements for change of state citizenship
A person instantly becomes a citizen of a state upon arriving there with the intention to make it their permanent home; no fixed local residence or specific period of time is required
Citizenship for diversity purposes requires only: (1) physical presence in the state, and (2) intention to remain permanently (animus manendi). Time and fixed abode are evidentiary considerations only, not requirements. Domicile of origin is more easily reacquired.
unanimousnon-binding
Infant's citizenship following mother's domicile change
An infant's domicile follows that of the mother after father's death, and changes immediately when mother changes her domicile while unmarried
After father's death, mother has power to change infant's domicile until she remarries. When mother arrived in Texas with intent to remain permanently, infant instantly acquired Texas domicile.
unanimousnon-binding
Venue provision of judiciary act
The requirement that diversity suits be brought in district of plaintiff's or defendant's residence is a personal privilege that can be waived, not a jurisdictional limitation
Venue provisions affect only the mode of bringing defendant within jurisdiction, not the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
unanimousnon-binding

Statutory interpretation

2
Statute
U.S. Constitution Article 3, § 2
Question
Meaning of 'citizens of different states' for diversity jurisdiction
Court's reading
Requires state citizenship, which means domicile (residence plus intent to remain permanently)
Canons applied
Plain meaningHistorical interpretation
Statute
Judiciary Act of 1887/1888 venue provision
Question
Whether requirement to sue in district of residence affects subject matter jurisdiction
Court's reading
Venue provision is personal privilege that can be waived, not jurisdictional requirement
Canons applied
Textual analysisPractical consequences

Burden of proof

Prosecution burden
Not applicable - civil equity case
Defence burden
Party challenging jurisdiction must show lack of diverse citizenship
Burden met
true

Standards of review

  • Jurisdictional facts (citizenship determination) — de novo Court reviews jurisdictional facts independently
  • Legal interpretation of citizenship requirements — de novo Pure questions of law reviewed de novo

Timeline

7
Events
11,212
Days, incident to ruling
—
Span
factual eventcited in opinion

Mrs. Gholson (née Hunt) born in Texas

Establishes Texas as her domicile of origin

Mrs. Gholson Texas
factual eventcited in opinion

Mrs. Hunt marries Arthur Marks in Scotland

She acquires Tennessee domicile through marriage

Mrs. Hunt · Arthur Marks Scotland
factual eventcited in opinion

Arthur Marks dies, leaving widow and infant son Albert S. Marks Jr.

Widow can change domicile while unmarried; infant's domicile follows mother's

Arthur Marks · Mrs. Marks · Albert S. Marks Jr. Tennessee
factual eventcited in opinion

Mrs. Marks leaves Tennessee for Texas with infant son, intending permanent relocation

Begins process of changing domicile to Texas

Mrs. Marks · Albert S. Marks Jr. · Mrs. Pettus Tennessee to Texas
factual eventcited in opinion

Mrs. Marks arrives in Texarkana, Texas

Physically present in Texas with animus manendi

Mrs. Marks · Albert S. Marks Jr. · Mrs. Pettus Texarkana, Texas
factual eventcited in opinion

Mrs. Marks marries Mr. Gholson in San Antonio, Texas

After this marriage, she loses power to change infant's domicile

Mrs. Marks · Mr. Gholson San Antonio, Texas
filingcited in opinion

Two equity suits filed: one in state chancery court (removed to federal court), one in federal circuit court

Outcome: State suit removed to federal court; jurisdictional challenges raised

Initiates the litigation over trust administration

Albert D. Marks · Mrs. Gholson · Mr. Gholson · Albert S. Marks Jr. · Roy Fitzpatrick Winchester, Tennessee and Nashville, Tennessee trial court

Facts & evidence

Incident

Date
Various dates from 1865 to 1895
Location
Tennessee and Texas

Key facts

9 facts
  1. Mrs. Gholson (née Hunt) born in Texas in 1865, domicile of origin
  2. Married Arthur Marks (Tennessee citizen) in 1888, moved to Tennessee
  3. Arthur died 1892, leaving infant son Albert S. Marks Jr.
  4. Widow treated Tennessee as home but decided to return to Texas permanently
  5. Left Tennessee May 1, 1895 with infant son, intending Texas as permanent home
  6. Reached Texas May 3, 1895
  7. Married Mr. Gholson May 5, 1895 in Texas after he promised to make Texas permanent home
  8. No fixed residence planned in Texas - intended to move between properties
  9. Suits filed September 13, 1895 regarding trust administration of Arthur Marks' estate

Disputed questions

  • Whether infant Albert S. Marks Jr. was citizen of Texas or Tennessee at time suits filed
  • Whether mother had established Texas domicile before second marriage

Procedural history

5 steps
  1. September 13, 1895: Albert D. Marks files bill in Tennessee chancery court against Gholsons and infant
  2. September 13, 1895: Infant Albert S. Marks Jr. files bill in federal circuit court against Albert D. Marks and Novella Marks
  3. State court suit removed to federal court by nonresident defendants
  4. Jurisdiction challenged based on infant's citizenship
  5. Court hears jurisdictional issues only

Evidence in the record

Testimonial
  • Mrs. Gholson's expressions of intent to become Texas citizen
  • Mr. Gholson's testimony about marriage discussions
  • Mrs. Pettus's observations of Mrs. Gholson's statements
Documentary
  • Hotel registrations showing Tennessee origin
  • Railway ticket to San Antonio
  • Deed creating trust
  • Pleadings in both lawsuits

Objects of relevance

Hotel registration books showing Tennessee originRailway ticket to San Antonio

Policy considerations

  • Freedom of interstate movement and commerce
  • Practical realities of mobile citizens without fixed residences
  • Avoiding technical barriers to federal jurisdiction

Authorities

Cited authorities (6)

Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315
followedprecedent
Cited for principle that court must examine jurisdiction sua sponte and that citizenship means domicile
Mitchell v. U. S., 21 Wall. 350
followedquotedprecedent
Cited for elements establishing animus manendi and presumption domicile continues until changed
at 21 Wall. 353
Cooper v. Galbraith, Fed. Cas. No. 3,193
followedquotedprecedent
Cited for principle that citizenship changes instantly upon removal with bona fide intent
Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452
followedprecedent
Cited for rule that infant's domicile follows mother's after father's death
Burnham v. Rangeley, Fed. Cas. No. 2,176
followedquotedprecedent
Cited for principle that domicile changes immediately with intent and that intent is key factor
Story on the Conflict of Laws
appliedquotedpersuasive
Cited for propositions on change of domicile and reacquisition of domicile of origin

Statutes

  • U.S. Constitution Article 3, § 2
  • Judiciary Act of 1887/1888

Standards & doctrines

  • Domicile doctrine for determining state citizenship
  • Diversity jurisdiction doctrine
  • Comity between state and federal courts

Legal principles applied

  • Citizenship for diversity requires residence plus intent to remain
  • Infant's domicile follows mother's after father's death
  • Venue provisions are personal privileges, not jurisdictional

Notable quotes

“All that is necessary to effect such change is removal from one state to another, with the intention to reside permanently in the new state.”
CLARK, District Judge — Explaining requirements for change of state citizenship
Core holding that no fixed residence or time period is required
“The whole question of domicile is usually dependent on the intent of the party, though that is to be collected or inferred from acts as well as declarations.”
CLARK, District Judge (quoting Justice Woodbury) — Citing Justice Woodbury on determining domicile
Emphasizes intent as primary factor in domicile determination
Index terms84
Summary terms
Legal mechanisms
Various actions
Various actors
Legal concepts
Legal outcomes
Legal issues
Legal procedures
Legal remedies
Legal evidence
Legal arguments
Legal defenses
Legal penalties
Legal procedural steps
Geo locations
Judges
Attorneys
Procedural terms
Substantive offenses
Entities and documentation
Legal actions
Action type
affirmed
Target
Jurisdiction of federal court
Appealed from
Challenges to jurisdiction
Context
Court overrules motion to remand and plea to jurisdiction, finding diverse citizenship exists
Scope
full
Disposition vote
unanimous
Action type
remanded without vacatur
Target
Case management of parallel suits
Appealed from
Not applicable - original proceeding
Context
Court orders consolidation of two suits, with leave to dismiss one and file cross-bill in the other
Scope
further proceedings
Further instructions
Plaintiff in federal-originated suit may dismiss and file cross-bill in removed state suit, or defendant may plead pendency of first suit as defense
Search facets
Parties
Judges
Clark
Courts
Locations
Statutes cited