In Capron v. Van Noorden (1804) 6 U.S. 126, a judgment was reversed, on the application of the party against whom it had been rendered in the circuit court, for want of the allegation of his own citizenship, which he ought to have made, to establish the jurisdiction which he had invoked. The plaintiff below procured the reversal of a judgment for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff's allegations of citizenship had not shown jurisdiction. But it is not necessary to determine whether the defendant can be allowed to assign want of jurisdiction as an error in a judgment in his own favor. The Court held that Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final judgment. The ability of the court to independently address subject-matter jurisdiction is important to finality inasmuch as a litigant, even one who remains silent on the issue of jurisdiction, may wait until they receive an adverse judgment from a district court and raise the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction for the first time on appeal, thereby voiding the judgment. The Court also noted that "It was the duty of the Court to see that they had jurisdiction, for the consent of parties could not give it."