Page images
PDF
EPUB

under the United States, in violation of the State Constitution.4 49 That an action in the nature of quo warranto, to determine the title to the office of elector of President and Vice-President of the United States, brought in a State court, was not removable to a Circuit Court of the United States on the ground that the matters in dispute therein arose under the Constitution and laws of the United States.50 Jurisdiction of an action to enjoin the taxation of a bridge by the local authorities as a toll bridge, it being taxed by the State as a part of complainant's railroad, is not conferred upon a Federal court, by an allegation that the bridge was built under authority of an act of Congress, where the right of the State to tax the bridge is conceded, the controversy being as to the method of taxation under the State laws.51

A suit arises under the Constitution of the United States when brought to enjoin State officers from assessing 52 for taxation, complainant's property at a higher percentage of its value than that at which other property in the State is assessed, or from collecting 58 taxes so assessed, when the State officers act in obedience to a State statute; 54 and even, it has been held, when they do not, but the assessment is made or to be made by a State court of equalization as a quasi judicial body, although the State statutes and Constitution require uniformity.55 Suits

49 Bishop v. State, 149 Ind. 233, 48 N. E. 1038, 39 L.R.A. 278.

50 State v. Bowen (South Caro lina), 8 S. C. (8 Rich.) 382.

51 St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co. v Steele, 167 U. S. 659, 42 L. ed. 315.

52 W. U. Tel. Co. v. Poe, 61 Fed. 449; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Norman, 77 Fed. 13; Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Taylor, 86 Fed. 168. See C. C. A., 88 Fed. 350. See also Greene v. Louis & Interurban R. R. Co., 244 U. S. 499.

58 Third Nat. Bank v. Mylin, 76 Fed. 385. Mayor, etc., of Jersey City v. Central R. Co. of N. J., C. C. A., 212 Fed. 76; County of San Mateo v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 13 Fed. 145; where a removal of an

action to collect State and County taxes was allowed, because it appeared that, in accordance with the State Constitution, the amount of mortgages thereupon had not been deducted from the property of the defendant and other quasi public corporations when assessed; although in assessing for taxation other property, the amount of mortgages thereupon was first deducted.

54 County of San Mateo v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 13 Fed. 145.

55 Raymond V. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20, 38, 52 L. ed. 78, 88; Southern Ry. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission, 97 Fed. 513. Contra, St. Louis Irr. & S. Ry. Co. v. Davis, 132 Fed. 629.

arise under the Constitution of the United States, which are brought: to enjoin an assessment that plaintiff alleges was made in violation of his right to an exemption because of the ownership of United States bonds.56 To enjoin the enforcement of a special assessment for a betterment, made under a rule or system which throws such an unjust burden upon the landowner as to deprive him of property without due process of law.57 To enjoin the collection of taxes upon shares of stock in a national bank, which are taxed at a higher rate than other moneyed capital within the State, in violation of section 5319 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.58 To enjoin the collection of taxes on the capital stock of a bank, when it is claimed that the statute under which they were levied impairs the obligation of the contract concerning taxation embodied in the bank's charter.59 Where a bill to restrain the collection of a drainage tax alleged that a section of the State statute deprived complainants of their property without due process of law, it was held that the case arose under the Constitution of the United States.6 60 It was held that a suit did not, when brought for damages for injury to the plaintiff's land caused by the construction of a ditch for drainage, under a State statute which the bill averred was invalid under the Federal Constitution because there was no provision for notice to the plaintiff before the proceedings authorizing such construction.61 protest against the payment of a license tax on the ground that the law seeking to impose the same is unconstitutional will not give a Federal court jurisdiction to try and determine the constitutionality of the law.62

A

suit brought in the State court to enjoin the threatened importation of armed men into a county where a strike existed, on the ground that this would amount to a public nuisance and endanger the health, morals, peace and good order of

woul

56 People's Sav. Bank v. Layman,

134 Fed. 635.

57 Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 43 L. ed. 443.

58 Third Nat. Bank v. Mylin, 76 Fed. 385.

V.

59 Union & Planters' Bank Memphis, 111 Fed. 561, 49 C. C. A.

455.

60 Everglades Drainage League v. Napoleon B. Broward Drainage Dist. 253 Fed. 246.

61 Bronson v. Boards of Sup'rs, 237 Fed. 212.

62 Corbus V. Alaska Treadwell Gold-Min. Co., 99 Fed. 334.

the community, is not removable to a District Court of the United States as one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States; since, even assuming that the bill shows upon its face that the relief sought would be inconsistent with the power to regulate commerce, or with regulations established by Congress, or with the Fourteenth Amendment, such an assumption only demonstrates that the bill cannot be maintained. and not that the cause of action arose under the Constitution or laws of the United States.63

A suit by the owner to enjoin the destruction of a telegraph line is not within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, because such destruction would interfere with interstate commerce.64

It has been held that a suit for an injunction 65 or a receiver 66 does not arise under the constitution of the United States because of a State statute forbidding such injunction or receivership which plaintiff contends to be a violation of the Federal Constitution.

An issue whether full force and effect has been given to the judgment of a State court has been held not to involve the construction of the Constitution of the United States.67 The question whether a party to proceedings in a State court continued. such after a certain judgment in his favor, and the estate represented by him as administrator became bound by proceedings subsequent to the judgment; is not dependent for solution upon any construction of the Constitution or laws of the United States, so as to give the right of removal to the Federal Court.68 A mortgagee may sue in a court of the United States to prevent contracts pledged by the mortgagor from impairment by State legislation, irrespective of the citizenship of the mortgagor.69

63 Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 183 U. S. 185, 46 L. ed. 144; reversing 96 Fed. 353.

64 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Nolan, 240 Fed. 754.

65 Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum v. Hobart, C. C. A., 244 Fed. 385.

66 Orr v. Allen, C. C. A., 245 Fed. 486.

67 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Wiggins' Ferry Co., 108 U. S. 18, 27

L. ed. 636; affirming order Wig
gins' Ferry Co. v. Chicago & A. R.
Co., 11 Fed. 381, McCrary, 609;
Merritt v. Am. Steel Barge Co., C.
C. A., 75 Fed. 813.

68 Gibbs v. Crandall, 120 U. S. 105, 30 L. ed. 590.

69 City and County of Denver v. New York Tr. Co., C. C. A., 187 Fed. 890; City of Denver v. Mercantile Tr. Co., C. C. A., 201 Fed. 790; when it was held that the

Where the matter in dispute exceeds the jurisdictional amount. the requisite diversity of citizenship exists, the district court may enjoin an infringement of a State Constitution in a proper case.'

anc

70

§ 26. Suits arising under treaties of the United States. A su it arises under a treaty of the United States when its decision depends upon a construction or the determination of the validity of the same. It was held: that an action by a tribal Indian for false imprisonment under process of a State court, because of the violation of a State law from which he claimed exemption, arose under the laws and treaties of the United States.2

A suit to protect rights claimed under a treaty does not arise under the treaty when the validity of the latter is not disputed and its construction is not involved. It was held: that where both parties claimed under Mexican grants, confirmed and patented in accordance with a provision of a treaty, the plain tiff claiming certain water rights thereunder, which the defendant disputed; the suit did not arise under a treaty of the United States. Where a complaint in ejectment against private individuals alleged that plaintiff was ousted in violation of the provisions of the treaty with France, of October 21, 1808, the protection of the inhabitants of the ceded territory in the enjoyment of their property, it was held: that it did not show a case arising under a treaty of the United States, there being no assertion of any right, title, privilege or immunity, derived from Such treaty as against the defendants, and no charge that took possession by direction of the Government of the United States.5 A suit was maintained in a District Court of United States by the consul of Austria and Hungary, to

for

they

the

[blocks in formation]

3 Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U. S. 408, 40 L. ed. 199; Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co., 168 U. S. 430, 42 L. ed. 531. See Gill v. Oliver, 11 How. (U. S.) 529, 545, 13 L. ed. 799, 806.

4 Crystal Springs Land & Water Co. v. Los Angeles, 177 U. S. 169, 44 L. ed. 720; affirming 82 Fed. 114.

5 Filhiol v. Maurice, 185 U. S. 108, 46 L. ed. 827.

restrain a beneficial association from using the name of the Emperor of Austria and Hungary, as a part of its corporate name, and the use of his portrait as a part of its advertising literature, in order fraudulently to induce his subjects, resident in the United States, to believe that the association was conducted under the customs of their own country, and that their Emperor was identified with the same and a patron thereof.

§ 27. Suits where the parties are Federal corporations. In general. When either party is a corporation chartered by Congress, the case is one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and except in the case of national banks, the former rule was that a District Court of the United States might take jurisdiction of the same, either originally,2 or by removal,3

The statutes now provide: "No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction of any action or suit by or against any railroad company upon the ground that said railroad company was incorporated under an Act of Congress.'' 4

Some of the following decisions may still be of use to the practitioner. The court will take judicial notice that a party to the action is incorporated by an act of Congress, although the pleadings are silent upon the subject. It was not the domicile of a corporation created by an act of Congress which conferred jurisdiction on the Federal courts of suits to which it was a party, but

6 Von Thodorovich v. Franz Joseph Beneficial Ass'n, 154 Fed. 911. $ 27. 1 See infra, § 28.

2 Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 823, 6 L. ed. 204, 224; Male v. Atchison, etc., Ry., 240 U. S. 97; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Amato, 144 U. S. 465, 36 L. ed. 506; U. S. Freehold Land & Emigration Co. v. Gallegos, 89 Fed. 769, 32 C. C. A. 470.

3 Pacific R. R. Removal Cases; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Myers, 115 U. S. 1, 29 L. ed. 319; reversing Myers v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 16 Fed. 292, 3 McCrary, 578; Knights of Pythias v. Kalinski, 163 U. S. 289, 41 L. ed. 163, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1047; Matter

of Dunn, 212 U. S. 374, 53 L. ed. 558; Cruikshank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 16 Fed. 888, 21 Blatchf. 322; Allen v. Texas & P. R. Co., 25 Fed. 513; Supreme Lodge of Knights of Pythias of the World v. Hill, 76 Fed. 468, 22 C. C. A. 280; Union Pac. R. Co. v. McComb, 58 How. Prac. 478; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Watson, 43 S. W. 1060.

438 St. at L. 583, Comp. St. Bankers Trust Co. v. Tex. & Pac. Ry., 241 U. S 295.

5 Matter of Dunn, 212 U. S. 374, 53 L. ed. 558; Knights of Pythias v. England, 94 Fed. 369, 36 C. C. A. 298.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »