KING BRIDGE COMPANY
v.
OTOE COUNTY

U.S. | 1887-01-31
120 U.S. 225 Supreme Court of the United States (1887) Caution
Also reported at: 30 L. Ed. 623 · 7 S. Ct. 552 · SCDB 1886-129 · 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1964
Cited by 90 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

King Bridge Company brought an action against Otoe County in federal circuit court based on warrants, but the Supreme Court reversed and found the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff, as an assignee of the warrants, could not establish that the original warrant holder could have sued in federal court, as required by the 1875 statute governing assignee suits. The Court established that federal courts must independently verify their jurisdiction on every appeal, regardless of whether the parties raise the issue, and cannot hear cases where such jurisdiction does not affirmatively appear in the record.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Harlan,

Mr. Justice Harlan,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court. •

This case was argued upon the question of limitation. But we have no occasion to consider that question; for it does not appear that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the action. Unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record, the presumption, upon writ .of' error or appeal, is that the court below was without jurisdiction. Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Grace v. American Central Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 278, 283; Bors v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252; Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S.

237. That the point as to jurisdiction was" not made here by either party is immaterial,'because, as said in Mansfield, &c., Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382, “ the rule, springing from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States, is inflexible and without exception, which requires this court, of its own motion, to deny its own jurisdiction, and,- in the exercise of its appellate power, that of all other courts of the United States, in all cases where such .jurisdiction does not affirmatively appear, in the record' on which, in the exercise of that power, it is called to act. On 'every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and'then of the court from which the record comes.” See also Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229, 231.

The act of March 3, 1875, §1, excludes from the cognizance of a circuit or district court of the United States “any suit founded on contract in favor of a,n assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon if no assignment had been made, except in cases of promissory notes negotiable by. the law merchant, and bills of exchange.” One of the warrants is payable to Z. King, and the other to Z. King, or order. The latter is not indorsed by him in blank or to the order of the plaintiff. Plainly, therefore, upon any view of the statute, the plaintiff, as the holder or owner of the warrants, could not maintain a suit in the court below, unless King could have sued in that court, had he not sold the warrants. But it does not appear that King could' have maintained the suit. There is no averment as to his citizenship, nor, does his citizenship otherwise Appear from the record. We must, therefore, presume, on this writ of error, that thé Circuit Court was without' jurisdiction.

It will be for the court below to determine whether an amendment of the pleadings upon the point of jurisdiction will be proper. The plaintiff in error must pay the costs in this court. Peper v. Fordyce, 119 U. S. 469 Everhart v. Huntsville College, ante, 223.

Reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (39 total)

  • Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986)
    …nstruments which define and limit that power, the Court early in its history wisely adopted a presumption that every federal court is “without jurisdiction” unless “the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.” King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225, 226 (1887). Accord, Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 195 U. S. 207, 210 (1904); Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48, 62-63 (1904). That presumption is just as “inflexible” in this Court as in any other federal court.4 Even for cases unq…
  • Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1908)
    …he jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded. This duty we have frequently performed of our own motion. Mansfield, &c. Railway Company v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382; King Bridge Company v. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225; Blacklock v. Small, 127 U. S. 96, 105; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322, 326; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586, 587; Continental National Bank v. Buford, 191 U. S. 119. There was no diversity of citizenship'and it is not and cannot be suggested…
  • Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1989)
    …presumption [*267] that federal courts are without jurisdiction unless “ ‘the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 692 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225, 226 (1887)). Second, in its original form, the presumption adopted in Michigan v. Long expanded this Court’s review of cases in which state courts had overprotected their respective citizens. In my opinion, the federal courts — and •particularly t…

Previewing 3 of 39 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw