Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Third Street & Suburban Railway Co. v. Lewis

Third St. & Suburban Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 173 U.S. 457 (1899)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1899-03-20
Topic
bankruptcy

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 *460 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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Third Street & Suburban Railway Co. v. Lewis. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
27 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Diversity Jurisdiction A suit in which federal jurisdiction is invoked on the ground of diverse citizenship remains a diversity case for purposes of appellate review, even where a later-added party's interest is traced through a conveyance made pursuant to a prior federal-court decree.
  2. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Appellate Jurisdiction Where jurisdiction originally depends on diverse citizenship, the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final by statute, and a further appeal cannot be sustained.
  3. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Federal Question Jurisdiction Under the Act of August 13, 1888, 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 it appears from the plaintiff's statement that a federal question is a necessary part of the claim. Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586, 589; Colorado Central Mining Co. v. Turck, 150 U.S. 138
  4. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Pleading Jurisdiction A plaintiff's averments concerning how a defendant acquired its interest are no part of the plaintiff's case, and a mere reference to a prior foreclosure sale cannot support federal-question jurisdiction on the theory that the plaintiff's cause of action derives from federal law.
  5. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Subject-Matter Jurisdiction 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; lack of jurisdiction cannot be supplied by anything set up by way of defense.
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 *460 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.