BONIN
v.
GULF COMPANY
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.
The heirs of Gonsoulin brought an ejectment action against the Gulf Company in Louisiana state court to recover land based on a Spanish grant from 1783 that was later patented by the United States Government, but the case was removed to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error and denied certiorari because the federal courts' jurisdiction rested solely on diversity of citizenship, and the case involved only state law questions of prescription and res judicata rather than any substantial federal question that would independently confer jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a petitory action for real property, or an action of ejectment, brought by the heirs of Gonsoulin, plaintiffs in error, against the Gulf Company, defendant in error, in the District Court of St. Mary’s Parish, Louisiana, where the land was situated. The petition alleged that a grant or concession by the Spanish Government was originally made to Dubuclet, St. Clair and Gonsoulin in 1783, and that the interest of Dubuclet and St. Clair were conveyed to the heirs of Gonsoulin after 1808.
That the United States Government issued a patent to the heirs of Gonsoulin, and that petitioners’ “claim by said grant and concession covering said lands, dates back to the year seventeen hundred and eighty-three or thereabouts, and said concession was recognized and confirmed by .the'United States Government after proper and legal surveys had defined the boundaries and segregated said grants.”
That said lands were “now in the possession of and illegally detained and held by the Gulf Company, a body corporate organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, domiciled in the State of New Jersey.”
The Gülf Company filed its petition for the removal of the cause, alleging that it was, at the time the suit was brought, and when the petition was filed, a citizen of New Jersey, and that the heirs of Gonsoulin were citizens of. the State of Louisiana. The cause was removed accordingly, and plaintiffs filed in the Circuit Court.an amended and supplemental petition, stating that all the plaintiffs were citizens' of Louisiana, and that defendant was a citizen of New Jersey, and praying that petitioners “be recognized as .the true and lawful owners of the said property described in the patent, letters patent, or grant, issued to Dautrieve Dubuclet, Benoist de St. Clair and Francois Gonsoulin by the United States of America, on August 21, 1878,” and that they be put in possession.
Plaintiffs pitched their title solely on-this patent. Defendant for peremptory exception pleaded the prescription of ten years; the prescription of thirty years; and res judicata.
On the trial the Circuit Court charged the jurv to find for defendant on the pleas of prescription, and nan-suited defendant on the plea of res judicata. Verdict was returned, and judgment entered accordingly, and the case having been carried to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the judgment was affirmed. 116 Fed. Rep. 251.
The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court rested alone on diversity of citizenship. The assertion of title under a patent from the United States, presented no question, which, of itself, conferred jurisdiction. Florida Central Railroad Company v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321, 328. No dispute or controversy as to the effect or construction of the Constitution, or of any law, or treaty of the. United States, on whicli the result depended, appeared by the record to have been really and substantially involved, so that it could be successfully contended that jurisdiction was invoked on the ground that the suit arqse under Constitution, law, or treaty. Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 191 U. S. 405.
On the pleadings and evidence, the questions in the Circuit Court were questions of prescription, and of res judicata; in the Circuit Court of Appeals, of prescription; and plaintiffs’ petitions did not assert, in legal and logical form, or at all, the existence of a real controversy,., in itself, constituting an independent ground of jurisdiction. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was, therefore, final, and the writ of error must be dismissed.
The judgment was entered in the Circuit Court of Appeals May 27, 1902; this writ of error was allowed May 22, 1903; and the case was docketed here June 1, 1903.
Plaintiffs in error filed a petition for certiorari herein, February 17, 1905, which was submitted February 27, and its consideration postponed to the hearing on the merits. In our opinion that writ should not be granted. Ayres v. Polsdorfer, 187 U. S. 595.
Writ of error dismissed; certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1912)
-
Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1910)…e, and under bail for his appearance for a different offense against the United States. But it was held that this fact afforded no reason for denying a removal upon the election to try the one case before the Trial of the other. In Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 115, objection was made to a removal to the District of Columbia upon the ground that the offense, if any, was committed in California, and that, under the Constitution, the appellant was entitled to a trial in that jurisdiction. In dealing with that qu…
-
Re Metro. Ry. Receivership, 208 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1908)…volves a controversy as to the effect or construction of the Constitution or on the determination of which'the result depends. Defiance Water Co. v. Defiance, 191 U. S. 184; Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U. S. 561; Bonin v. Gulf Company, 198 U. S. 115; Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313. The appointment of a receiver in the case of a railroad engaged in interstate commerce does not necessarily involve any such controversy. Jurisdiction to appoint a receiver by a Circuit Court of the United Stat…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Bell, 176 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1900)
- Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 191 U.S. 405 (U.S. 1903)