TAYLOR
v.
ANDERSON

U.S. | 1914-05-25
No. 338
234 U.S. 74 Supreme Court of the United States (1914) Caution
Also reported at: 58 L. Ed. 1218 · 34 S. Ct. 724 · 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1188 · SCDB 1913-129
Cited by 337 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

In an ejectment action where plaintiffs sought to recover possession of land, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' allegations regarding federal law restrictions on the alienation of Native American allotments appeared only in anticipation of expected defenses rather than in their statement of their own claim. The Court held that federal question jurisdiction under the Judicial Code must be determined solely from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's own pleading of their cause of action, not from allegations addressing potential defensive theories.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Van Devanter

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment here under review is one of dismissal for want of jurisdiction. The action was in ejectment. The petition alleged that the plaintiffs were owners in fee and entitled to the possession; that the defendants had forcibly-taken possession and were wrongfully keeping the plaintiffs out of possession, and that the latter were damaged thereby in a sum named. Nothing more was required to state a good cause of action. Snyder’s Comp. Laws Okla., §§ 5627, 6122; Joy v. St. Louis, 201 U. S. 332, 340. But the petition, going beyond what was required, alleged with much detail that the defendants were asserting ownership in themselves under a certain deed and that it was void under the: legislation of Congress restricting the alienation of lands allotted to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians.

However essential or appropriate these allegations might have been in a bill in equity to cancel or annul the deed, they were neither essential nor appropriate in a petition in ejectment. Apparently, their purpose was to anticipate and avoid a defense which it was supposed the defendants would interpose, but, of course, it rested with the defendants to select their ground of defense, and it well might be that this one would not be interposed. In the orderly course, the plaintiffs were required to state their own case in the first instance and then to deal with the defendants’ after it should be disclosed in the answer. Snyder’s Comp. Laws, §§5634, 5642, 5668; Boston &c. Mining Co. v. Montana Ore Co., 188 U. S. 632, 639. Diversity of citizenship was not alleged, and, unless the allegations respecting the invalidity, under the legislation of Congress, of the defensive claim attributed to the defendants operated to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, the judgment of dismissal was plainly right.

It is now contended that these allegations showed that the case was one arising under the laws of the United States, namely, the acts restricting the alienation of Choctaw and Chickasaw allotments, and therefore brought it within the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. But the contention overlooks repeated decisions of this court by which it has become firmly settled that whether a case is one arising under the Constitution or a law or treaty of the United States, in the sense of the jurisdictional statute (now § 24, Judicial Code), must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which 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; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Denver v. New York Trust Co., 229 U. S. 123, 133-135. Tested by this standard, as it must be, the case disclosed by the petition was not one arising under a law of the United States.

Whether or not in other respects the plaintiffs overlooked an authorized mode of securing relief to which they may be entitled need not now be considered. See 35 Stat. 312, 314, c. 199, § 6; Bowling v. United States, 233 U. S. 528, and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (97 total)

  • Gully v. First Nat'l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1936)
    …omplaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for removal. Tennessee v. Union & Planters Bank, 152 U. S. 454; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149; The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 U. S. 22, 25; Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U. S. 74. Indeed, the complaint itself will not avail as a basis of jurisdiction in so far as it goes beyond a statement of the plaintiff’s «ause of action and anticipates or replies to a probable defense. Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313, 334; The Fair…
  • Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983)
    …rmined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U. S. 74, 75-76 (1914). Thus, a federal court does not have original jurisdiction over a case in which the complaint presents a state-law cause of action, but also asserts that federal law deprives the defendant of a defense he may raise, Taylor v. Anderson…
    1 / 2
  • Skelly OIL Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1950)
    …e v. Union & Planters’ Bank, 152 U. S. 454, 464. The plaintiff’s claim itself must present a federal question “unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U. S. 74, 75-76; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149, 152. [*673] These decisions reflect the current of jurisdictional legislation since the Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, first entrusted to the lower federal courts wide jurisdictio…

Previewing 3 of 97 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