CHAPPELL
v.
WATERWORTH

U.S. | 1894-11-05
No. 16
155 U.S. 102 Supreme Court of the United States (1894) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 39 L. Ed. 85 · 15 S. Ct. 34 · 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2254 · SCDB 1894-011
Cited by 50 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

A case was removed from Maryland state court to federal circuit court in an ejectment action, but the Supreme Court held the removal was improper because the plaintiff's declaration did not allege that any federal constitutional, statutory, or treaty right was at issue, and such federal question jurisdiction cannot be established by statements in the removal petition or subsequent pleadings rather than in the plaintiff's original claim. The Court reversed and remanded the case to state court, holding that if a federal defense is raised and rejected by the state's highest court, the judgment could then be reviewed by the Supreme Court on writ of error.

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

Opinion of the Court
‘Mr. Justice Gray,

‘Mr. Justice Gray,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The question presented by the pleadings, considered in the opinion below, and argued at the bar, cannot be decided upon this record, because the case was removed into the Circuit Court of the United States • without authority of law. The question of removal is governed bv the. decision of this court at the last term in Tennessee v. Bank of Commerce, 152 U. S. 454, by which, upon full consideration, it was adjudged that under the acts of March 3, 1887, c. 373, (24 Stat. 552,) and August-13, 1888, c. 866, (25 Stat. 433,) a case (not depending on the citizenship of the parties, nor otherwise specially provided for,) cannot be removed from a state court into the Circuit Court of the United States, as one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, unless that appears by the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim; and that, if it does not so appear, the want cannot be supplied by any statement in the petition for removal or in the subsequent pleadings.

In the present case, the declaration is in the ordinary form of an action of ejectment between individuals, merely describing the land and alleging the ouster of the plaintiff by the defendant. It does not show that either party claims any right under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the government of the United States or any third party claims or assorts any title or right to the land in controversy. So far as the declaration shows, the only question in the case might be merely whether the plaintiff has any title, or whether the defendant has taken possession..- There was therefore no ground for ousting the jurisdiction of the courts of the State, and removing the case into the courts of the United States for trial.

The case must be remanded to the court in which it was originally brought. If such a defence as was set up in the Circuit Court of the United States should be hereafter set up in the courts of the State, and overruled by the highest court of the State to which the case can be taken, the judgment of that court may be reviewed by this court on writ of error. Judgment reversed, with costs, and case remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States with directions to remand it to the Circuit Court of the fifth judicial circuit of the State of Maryland.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (25 total)

  • Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1908)
    …announced in Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586, and has since been repeated and applied in Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Company v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138, 142; Tennessee v. Union & Planters’ Bank, 152 U. S. 454, 459; Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 U. S. 102, 107; Postal Telegraph Cable Company v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482, 487; Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern Railway Company v. Skottowe, 162 U. S. 490, 494; Walker v. Collins, 167 U. S. 57, 59; Muse v. Arlington Hotel Company, 168 U. S. 430, 436; Galvest…
  • Minnesota v. N. Sec. Co., 194 U.S. 48 (U.S. 1904)
    …upon their face, and often recognized by this court, to contract the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States." Mexican Nat. Railroad v. Davidson, 157 U. S. 201, 208; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586. And in Chappell v. Walerworth, 155 U. S. 102, 107, the court, referring to Tennessee v. Union & Planters’ Bank, said that it was there adjudged, upon full consideration, that, under the act of 1887-8, “a case (not depending on the citizenship of the parties, nor otherwise specially provided fo…
  • Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1900)

Previewing 3 of 25 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