Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

exclusive cognizance of bankruptcy proceedings, federal crimes and offenses, and suits against foreign consuls and vice consuls; but jurisdiction of suits against foreign ambassadors or other public ministers in the country, and their domestic servants, is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court.

80. Civil suits brought by the United States or its officers. Any civil suit at law or in equity brought by the United States, or by any officer thereof authorized by law to sue, may be brought in the district court, without regard to the amount in controversy, as well as in the state courts. The proper district for the bringing of such suit is the one where the defendant resides, but if brought in any other district where he is properly served or appears he may waive the objection that the suit is not brought in the proper district. Suits by the United States or its officers are almost universally brought in the district court, but the state courts have jurisdiction.30

81. Civil suits between citizens of the same state claiming under diverse state land grants.-These actions are now quite infrequent, and may be brought in the district court without regard to the amount in controversy. The federal court was given jurisdiction of such suits for the reason that a state court hearing such a dispute might not be entirely unbiased.31

30 This follows from the removal statutes, and from the fact that all of the former jurisdiction acts from 1789 to 1887 expressly gave the district or circuit court jurisdiction concurrent with the state courts of all suits brought by the United States. See also Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, 23 L. Ed. 833.

31 Judicial Code, Subdivision of § 24.

82. Civil suits arising under the federal Constitution, laws, or treaties.-When the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $3,000, and a federal question is involved, the district courts are given jurisdiction. Suit should be brought in the district where the defendant resides,32 unless the defendant waives the objection. Suits against aliens arising under federal law may be brought in any district where the defendant can be found. Cases of this kind go to the court of appeals of the same circuit, and may be taken from that court to the Supreme Court by appeal or writ of error, where they involve more than $1,000.

34

Suits by or against federal corporations. A suit by or against a corporation organized or created by an act of Congress is one arising under the laws of the United States, and the district court has jurisdiction of such suits, if more than $3,000 are involved, exclusive of interest and costs, without regard to the citizenship of the parties, and without regard to the citizenship of the individual party, if any." All the Pacific railroads, except the Union Pacific and Northern Pacific, are federal corporations, and come within this rule. The Northern Pacific company was originally a federal corporation, but reorganized under the laws of Wisconsin in 1896. The reason of this rule is, that all the faculties and capacities of federal corporations are derived from their

32 Judicial Code, § 51.

33 Barrows S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 18 Sup. Ct. 526, 42 L. Ed. 964.

34 Roberts v. Northern P. R. Co., 158 U. S. 1, 15 Sup. Ct. 756, 39 L. Ed. 873.

act of incorporation by Congress. All their doings arise out of those laws, and suits by or against them are therefore suits arising under the laws of the United States.35 The same rule applies to a state corporation consolidated with a federal corporation.36 This rule does not apply to national banks, which by act of Congress are made citizens of the state where located.

Suits by or against federal receivers. Such suits were formerly cognizable by the circuit or district court, on the ground that such receivers were appointed under federal laws, and therefore such laws. were drawn in question in any suit respecting their functions and powers. This rule has been changed, however, so that the mere fact of such federal appointment does not give jurisdiction.37 If, however, a construction of the powers of the receiver is required to be made by the court in deciding the case, then the federal court has jurisdiction.38 An action by or against a federal receiver of a federal corporation is within the jurisdiction.39

83. Civil suits between citizens of different states. -The largest class of cases over which the district court has jurisdiction are cases of diverse citizenship, some of which are brought directly in the district court, and others removed to that court from

35 Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 1, 5 Sup. Ct. 1113, 29 L. Ed. 319.

36 Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449, 4 Sup. Ct. 437, 28 L. Ed. 482.

37 Gableman v. Peoria, etc., R. Co., 179 U. S. 335, 21 Sup. Ct. 171, 45 L. Ed. 220.

38 Rouse v. Hornsby, 161 U. S. 558, 16 Sup. Ct. 610, 40 L. Ed. 817.

39 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593, 12 Sup. Ct. 905, 36 L. Ed.

829.

the state courts. The case must involve more than $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and must be brought in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or defendant, unless the objection is waived. The state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over such cases.40 All of the parties on each side must be citizens of different states. If one of the defendants, for instance, is a citizen of the same state as one of the plaintiffs the court has no jurisdiction.* The citizenship referred to relates to the state, and not to the United States. A person may be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of any particular state. This is the condition of citizens residing in the District of Columbia and the territories, or those who have taken up a residence abroad.42 A state cannot be a citizen, though a corporation may be.43

The words citizen and alien include corporations.** It was at first held by the Supreme Court that the jurisdiction over corporations depended upon the citizenship of their stockholders, so that if any stockholder was a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff the federal court could not take jurisdiction. Later a fiction was adopted for the purpose of retaining jurisdiction over corporations, by which it was conclusively presumed that all the stockholders of a corporation were citizens of the state where the cor

40 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 1, and § 51.

41 Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, 26 L. Ed. 514.

42 Prentiss v. Brennan, 2 Blatchf. 162 (U. S.); 19 Fed. Cas., No. 11385. 43 Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482, 15 Sup. Ct. 192, 39 L. Ed. 231.

44 Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 18 Sup. Ct. 526, 42 L. Ed. 964.

46

poration was organized.* Perplexing questions have arisen where a corporation is first incorporated in one state and then in another, or if consolidated and merged into a single corporation under the laws of both states. A corporation first created in New Hampshire, and later in Massachusetts, is regarded as a corporation of the state of New Hampshire, and may bring suit against a citizen of Massachusetts; but if the corporation is consolidated under the laws of two or more states it cannot be sued by a citizen of either of those states. When a corporation is chartered in several states, and is sued in one of those states by a citizen thereof, it cannot claim that it is a citizen of another state. In Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Whitton 48 a railroad company chartered in Illinois and Wisconsin was sued in Wisconsin by a citizen of Illinois. It was held that the company could not defeat the federal jurisdiction by claiming that it was also a citizen of Illinois, the state of the plaintiff's residence.

47

84. Suits on assigned contracts.-In order to prevent the assignment of promissory notes, bills of exchange and other contracts, so as to give jurisdiction to the federal court, it is provided that such suits cannot be brought in the district court unless the original parties were citizens of different states. The statute, however, does not apply to instruments

45 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5, 26 L. Ed. 643; Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 18 Sup. Ct. 526, 42 L. Ed. 964.

46 Nashua & L. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co., 136 U. S. 356, 10 Sup. Ct. 1004, 34 L. Ed. 363.

47 Horne v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 18 Fed. 50.

48 13 Wall. 270 (U. S.), 20 L. Ed. 571.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »