nd
the limits marked out by the Constitution. And in regulating the
judicial department, the cases in which the courts of the United States
shall have jurisdiction are particularly and specifically enumerated and
defined; and they are not authorized to take cognizance of any case
which does not come within the description therein specified. Hence,
when a plaintiff sues in a court of the United States, it is necessary
that he should show, in his pleadings, that the suit he brings is within
the jurisdiction of the court, and that he is entitled to sue there. And
if he omits to do this, and should, by any oversight of the Circuit
Court, obtain a judgment in his favor, the judgment would be reversed in
the appellate court for want of jurisdiction in the court below. The
jurisdiction would not be presumed, as in the case of a common-law
English or State court, unless the contrary appeared. But the record,
when it comes before the appellate court, must show, affirmatively, that
the inferior court had authority, under the Constitution, to hear and
determine the case. And if the plaintiff claims a right to sue in a
Circuit Court of the United States, under that provision of the
Constitution which gives jurisdiction in controversies between citizens
of different States, he must distinctly aver in his pleadings that they
are citizens of different States; and he can not maintain his suit
without showing that fact in the pleadings.

This point was decided in the case of Bingham _v._ Cabot, (in 3 Dall.,
382,) and ever since adhered to by the court. And in Jackson _v._ Ashton
(8 Pet., 148,) it was held that the objection to which it was open could
not be waived by the opposite party, because consent of parties could
not give jurisdiction.

It is needless to accumulate cases on this subject. Those already
referred to, and the cases of Capron _v._ Van Noorden, (in 2 Cr. 126.,)
and Montalet _v._ Murray, (4 Cr., 46,) are sufficient to show the rule
of which we have spoken. The case of Capron _v._ Van Noorden strikingly
illustrates the difference between a common-law court and a court of the
United States.

If, however, the fact of citizenship is avered in the declaration, and
the defendant does not deny it, and put it in issue by plea in
abatement, he can not offer evidence at the trial to disprove it, and
consequently can not avail himself of the objection in the appellate
court, unless the defect should be apparent in some other par