THIRD STREET AND SUBURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
LEWIS
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.
Third Street and Suburban Railway Company sought to appeal a Circuit Court of Appeals decree in a diversity jurisdiction case involving a mortgage dispute, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because jurisdiction was based solely on diverse citizenship between the parties and could not be sustained by subsequently developed claims regarding the defendant's acquisition of property rights. The Court held that when federal jurisdiction initially rests on diverse citizenship, the Circuit Court of Appeals' decision becomes final under the 1888 statute, and jurisdiction cannot be expanded or salvaged by facts alleged during the litigation that might suggest a federal question was involved.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fullee,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
Althougn the record does not contain the original bill, it is apparent that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was invoked on the ground of diverse citizenship, and that the interest of appellants in the mortgaged premises was acquired after the commencement of the action.
This supplemental-bill made appellant a party defendant as claiming an interest, but the jurisdiction still rested on diversity of citizenship. The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals'was, therefore, made final by the statute, and the appeal cannot be sustained. •
.But it is said 'that because plaintiff saw fit to set forth the manner in which appellant obtained its. interest, and it appeared that appellant claimed under a conveyance from the purchasers at a sale made pursuant to a decree of the Circuit Court, the jurisdiction was not entirely dependent on the citizenship of the parties. The averments, • however, in respect to the acquisition of its interest by appellant, were no part of .plaintiff’s case, and if there had been no allegation of diverse citizenship the bill unquestionably could not have been retained. The mere reference to the sale and foreclosure could not have been laid hold of to maintain jurisdiction on .the theory that plaintiff’s' cause of action was based on some right derived from the Constitution or laws of the United States.
It is thoroughly settled that under the act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 434, the Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction, either original or by removal from a state court, of a suit as one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, unless that appears by the plaintiff’s statement to be a necessary part of his claim. Tennessee v. Union and Planters’ Bank, 152 U. S. 454; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586, 589; Colorado Central Mining Co. v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138. If it does not appear at the outset that the „suit is one of which the Circuit Court at the time its jurisdiction is invoked could properly take cognizance, the suit must be dismissed; and lack of jurisdiction cannot be supplied by anything set up by way of defence. And so when jurisdiction originally depends on diverse citizenship the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final, though another ground of jurisdiction may be developed in the course of the proceedings. Ex parte Jones, 164 U. S. 691.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1908)…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; Galveston &c. Railway v. Texas, 170 U. S. 226, 236; Third Street & Suburban Railway Company v. Lewis, 173 U. S. 457, 460; Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321, 327; Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company v. Texas, 177 U. S. 66, 78; Arkansas v. Kansas & Texas Coal Company & San Francisco Railroad, 183 U. S. 185, 188; Vicksburg Wat…
-
Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74 (U.S. 1914)…n the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which [*76] it is thought the defendant may interpose. Tennessee v. Union and Planters’ Bank, 152 U. S. 454, 460, 464; Third Street Railway Co. v. Lewis, 173 U. S. 457, 460; Florida Central Railroad Co. v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321, 329; Boston &c. Mining Co. v. Montana Ore Co., supra; Joy v. St. Louis, supra; Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313, 333; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149; Shult…
-
Minnesota v. N. Sec. Co., 194 U.S. 48 (U.S. 1904)…appear at the outset,” this court has quite recently said, “that the suit is one of which the Circuit Court at the time its jurisdiction [*65] is invoked could properly take cognizance, the suit must be dismissed.” Third St. & Suburban Ry. v. Lewis, 173 U. S. 457, 460. We must then inquire whether the complaint presents a case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, in respect of which the original jurisdiction of the Circuit Court could have been invoked by the State. The real purpose…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1894)
- Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1888)
- Colo. Cent. Consol. Mining Co. v. Turck, 150 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1893)
- Ex parte Jones, 164 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1897)