Слике страница
PDF
ePub

5

is, not what it would bring at a forced sale in cash, but what it would bring in the ordinary course of business.3 The contract assumes to immediately create the marriage relation, imposing upon the husband all the obligations which the law creates; the pecuniary value of such obli. gations and rights is the amount required to give jurisdiction. + Where a bill for specific performance does not state the value of the land, which is fixed at $1,000 in the contract, an amending allegation that its present value is $3,000 brings the amount in controversy within the jurisdiction.”

1 Lehigh Zinc & I. Co. v. New Jersey Zinc & I, Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 545. 2 Lovett v. Prentice, 44 Fed. Rep. 459. 3 Berthold v. Hoskins, 38 Fed. Rep. 772. 4 Sharon v. Terry, 13 Sawy. 387. 5 Johnston v. Trippe, 33 Fed. Rep. 530.

§ 74. On ground of diverse citizenship.–Or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid, or a controversy between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States, or a troversy between citizens of a State and foreign states, citizens or subjects, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid.

Clause 2 of sec. 1 of Act of March 3, 1875, as amended March 3, 1887, 24 U. S. Stats. 552; and corrected Aug. 13, 1888, 25 U. S. Stats. 433.

§ 74 a. There must be a controversy.- The jurisdiction of the circuit court extends to controversies between citizens of different States;' and the situation of the parties and their characters, determine the jurisdiction;? but it has no jurisdiction of a suit between parties of the same State; and if neither party is a citizen of the State where suit is brought it has no jurisdiction;

con

but a citizen of a State where suit is brought may sue a citizen of another State. A party who resides in a State with his family, and carries on business there, is deemed a citizen of that State;6 but if his business is only temporary, and for a special purpose, with the animo revertendi, he does not thereby become a citizen.? To have the right to sue, a party must be a citizen of some State; so a citizen of a Territory cannot institute an action in the circuit court, although he be joined with a citizen of a State;} so a citizen of the District of Columbia cannot maintain an action in the circuit court.9 Prior to the Act of March 3d, 1875, the circuit court had jurisdiction only when the suit was between a citizen of the State and å citizen of another State; and if there were several plaintiffs and several defendants, each one of each class must have possessed the requisite character as to citizenship. 10 So, under prior statutes, two citizens of different States could not have joined as plaintiffs in a suit in one State against a citizen of a third State;"1 but it was not necessary that all the defendants should be citizens of the same State, provided none of them were citizens of the same State with the plaintiff;12 yet the joinder of a defendant not served, and who does not appear, who is a citizen of the same State as plaintiff, will not defeat the jurisdiction;"3 but if defendant was served with process, and was not a mere pominal party, it defeated the jurisdiction. 11 As to citizenship, the plaintiff being assignee of one who was a citizen of the same State as defendant cannot sue in the United States courts. 15

1 Ohio & M. R. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286. But see Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch, 57. No matter of what State plaintiff is a citizen: Brooks v. Bailey, 9 Fed. Rep. 438.

2 Conolly v Taylor, 2 Peters, 556. 3. Van Antwerp v. Hubbard. 8 Blatchf. 285; Llvingston v. Van Ingen; 1 Paine, 45; S. C. 9 Johns. 507; Merserole v. Ú. P. C. Co., 6 Blatchf. 356, Teal v. Walker, 10 Ch. L N. 131.

4 Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Peters, 556; Shute v. Davis, Peters C. C. 431; Goodyear v. Day, 1 Blatchf. 565; Kelly v. Harding, 5 Blatch. 502.

5 Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489; Kitchen v. Strawbridge, 4 Wash. C. C. 84.

6 Knox v. Greenleaf, 4 Dall, 360; Byrne v Holt, 2 Wash. C. C. 282.

7 Prentiss v. Barton, 1 Brock, 389; Conper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash, C. C. 516; Gardner v Sharp, 4 Wash. C. C. 6v9; Reed v. Bertrand, 4 Wash, C. C. 514.

8 New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91.

13 9 Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445; New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 92; Gassies v. Ballou, 6 Peters, 761; Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343; Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall, 280; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall

, 63; Westcott v. Fairfield, Peters C. C. 45; Hartshorne v. Wright, Peters C. C. 64.

10 Strawbridge v. Curtis, 3 Cranch, 267; Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172.

11 Moffat v. Soley, 2 Paine, 103. See Bank v. Slocomb, 14 Peters, 69; Irvine v. Lowry, 14 Peters, 293; Taylor v. Cook, 2 McLean, 516; Clearwater v. Meredith, 21 How. 489.

12 Railroad Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 554. 13 Doremus v. Bennet, 4 McLean, 224.

14 Ketchum v. Farmers' etc. Co., 4 McLean, 1; Coal Co. v. Blatchford. 11 Wall. 172; Lew. Mach. Co. Case, 18 Wall. 553.

15 Leutze v. Butterfield, 1 Abb. N. C. 367, reversing S. P. ante, 18.

§ 74 b. Citizenship between the parties must be diverse.-If the real litigation is between citizens of different States the case is within the constitutional graut of Federal judicial power, notwithstanding some of the adversary parties may happen to be citizens of the same State with some of the plaintiffs. It is not sufficient, to give jurisdiction to a circuit court of the United States, that the defendant in the suit is a citizen of the State, and that none of the complainants were citizens of that State. The adverse party must be a citizen of some other named State, or an alien. Under the Act of 1887 the Federal circuit court has original jurisdiction of a suit by a citizen of the State agaivst a non-resident, when that question depends solely on the diverse citizenship of the parties. 3 Where jurisdiction of a circuit court of the United States is based on the fact that the parties on one side are citizens of a different State from any of those on the other, the jurisdiction of the circuit court will depend upon the fact that the propery against which the alien or trust is asserted is within its jurisdiction. Where the administrator and defendant are citizens of different States, the action may be brought in a Federal court, though the deceased was a citizen of the same State with defendant, where his widow and children still reside.5 The citizenship of an administratrix to determine jurisdiction is that of herself as an individual; it does not depend upon that of her intestate or upon the State in which her letters were granted. 6 In matters of contract the citizens of different States have the right to litigate in the Federal courts. The United States circuit court in Ohio had jurisdiction of a suit by citizens of other States (who were not parties to previous proceedings in the State probate court), to set aside mortgages as fraudu. lent as to them and other creditors, where all that had been done in the State court was to file the assignment and the assignee's bond. 8

1 Dillon Rem. Causes, 5th ed. 115, citing many cases, among others: Bryant v. Rich, 106 Mass. 192; Vannevar v. Bryant, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 41, Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 199. Removal Cases 100 U. S. 457; Cooke v. Seligman, 17 Blatchf. 452; Myers v. Murray, Nelson & Co. (Iowa) 11 L. R. A. 217.

2 Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. Stats. 322.

3 Short v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 31 Fed. Rev. 225; S. C. 33 Fed. Rep. 114.

4 Langdon v. Central etc. Co. (Ga.), 2 L. R. A. 120. 5 Harper v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 102.

6 Continental L. Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237; Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S. 186.

7 Pleasant Township v. Ætna L. Ins. Co., 138 U. S. 67. 8 George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co. v. McGrcarty, 136 U. S. 237.

8 74 c. Must be between citizens of States. — Federal citizenship in a Territory or in the District of Columbia will not suffice to give jurisdiction to a Federal court on the ground of citizenship.1 Tɔ have the right to sue a party must be the citizen of some State; so the citizen of a Territory cannot institute an action in the circuit court, although he be joined with a citizen of the State. Nor can a citizen of the District of Columbia maintain an action in the circuit court.3

1 Seddon v. Virginia T. & C. S & I. Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 6; Barney v. Baltimore, 73 U. S. 233; Cameron v. Ho'lges, 127 U. S. 322; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 66 9. S. 1 Black, 283; Brooks v. Bailey, 9 Fed. Rep. 438; Whelan v. New York L. E. & W.R. Co. (Ohio), 33 Fed. Rep. 15; Seddon v. Virginia etc. R. Co. (Va.), 36 Fed. Rep. 6.

2 New Orleans v. Winter, 14 U. S. 1 Wheat. 91.

3 Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 2 Cranch, 415; New Orleans v. Winter, 14 U. S. 1 Wheat. 92; Gassies v. Ballou, 31 U. 9. 6 Peters, 761; Scott v. Jones, 46 U. S. 5 How. 313; Barney v. Baltimore, 73 U. S. 6 Wall. 230; Texas v. White, 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 70J; Baltimore & 0, R. Co. v. Har: is, 79 U. S. 12 Wall. 65; Wescott v. Fairfield, Peters C. Ct. 45; Hartshorn v. Wright, Id. 64; Holland v. Hyde, 41 Fed. Rep. 897.

$ 74 d.

Jurisdiction over corporations.-Citizen. ship as to jurisdiction means only residence;' so the circuit court may have jurisdiction over a controversy on account of residence, independently of the subject matter;? and for the purposes of jurisdic ion, corpora ions are deemed citizens of the State which crea:ed them;3 and this, irrespective of the individual citizenɛhip, of its members;t so a corporation may sue and be sued in the circuit court. It may institute an action in another State, although associated with a corporation of that State. If a corporation is created by the laws of two States, it is deemed a separate body in each State, and cannot sue a citizen of either State in the circuit court.7 But a citizen of one of the States may sue it in the other States; so where the legislature of a State has confirmed the charter of a corporation, a citizen of that State may maintain an action against the corporation in the circuit court.9 Where railroad corporations, created under the laws of different States, operating through such States in one connecied line, the consolidated corporation is to be considered a citizen of either State;10 but a corporation which merely leases a road in another State to operate therein does not thereby become a citizen of such State;11 and the mere appointment of an agent on whom process may be served will not make a corporation a citizen.12 A national bank of another State may sue in the Federal courts, although defendants are citizens of the same State as that in which the bank is established. 18

A State legislature has the right to exclude a foreign corporation;14 but it cannot deprive it of its right to sue in a Federal court by exacting a stipulation not to remove a cause from the State court. The rule as to citizenship applies to public municipal corporations;16 so a municipal corporation may sue and be sued in the circuit court;17 but a Statc cannot maintain an action in the circuit court. 18

1 Gassies v. Ballou, 6 Peters, 761; Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 162; Cooper Galbraith, 3 Wash. C. C. 546; Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Wash. C. C. 101. 2 Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 Wood. & M. 34.

3 Bank of U. S. v, Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61; Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman 5 Cranch, 57; U. S. v. Planters' B'k, 9 Wheat. 410; Bank v. Solocomb, 14 Peters, 60; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 314; Wheedon v. Camden & A. R. R. Co., 4 Am. Law Reg. 296; Marshall v. Balt. &0. R. R. Co., 16 How. 314; Rundle v. Del. & R. Can. Co., 14 How. 80; Covington D, Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. 227; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Ohio & M. R. R. Co. v. heeler, 1 Black, 286; Dennistoun v. N. Y. & NA R. R. Co., 1 Hilt. 62; Bonaparte v. Camden & A. R Co. Bald. 205; Greeley v. Smith, 3 Story, 76; Bliven v. N. E. Screw Co. 3 Blatchf. 111; Barney v. Globe Bank, 5 Blatchf. 107; West U. Tel. Oo, v. Dickinson, 40 Ind. 441; Oakey v. Bank, 14 La. 515; Rosen

15

« ПретходнаНастави »