« AnteriorContinuar »
25 McFarlden v. Robinson, 22 Fed. Rep. 10; Hambleton v. Dunham, 22 Fed. Rep. 465.
26 Miller v. Tobin, 18 Fed. Rep. 609. 27 Western Union Tel. C3. v. National Paper Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 561. 28 Davies v. Marine Bank, 21 Fed. Rep. 191. 29 McKee v, Brooks, 64 Tex. 255. 3) Lawrence v. Norton, 4 Woods, 383. 31 Upham v. Scoville, 40 Ark. 170. 32 Rothschild v. Matthews, 22 Fed. Rep. 6. 33 Ellis v. Norton, 15 Fed. Rep. 4. 31 Southern Pac. Co. v. California, 118 U. S. 109. 35 Carson v. Dunham, 121 U. S. 421. 36 Albright v. Teas, 106 U. S. 613. 37 Miller v. Wattier, 21 Fel. Rep. 43. 38 Williard v. Mueller, 23 Fed. Rep. 209. 39 New York v. Independent Steamboat Co., 22 Fed. Rep. 801. 40 Kessinger v. State, 27 Fed. F.ep. 830. 41 People v. Chicago B. & C. R. Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 706. 42 Stewart v. Virginia, 17 U.S. 612; Jones v. Commonwealth, 25 Fed. Rep. 666.
43 State v. Bradley, 26 Fed. Rep. 239.
45 Pacific Railroal Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 1; Eby v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 13 Phila. 161, overruling Myers v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 3 McCr. 578; S. C. 16 Fed. Rep. 292; Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Dyche, 29 Fed. Rep. 120.
46 Allen v. Texas Pac. Ry. Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 213. 47 Cruikshank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 16 Fed. Rep. 888; S. C. 65 How. Pr. 280.
48 Cooper v. Leather Mfrs. Nat. Bk., 29 Fed. Rep. 989.
49 Starin v. New York, 115 U. S. 243; Nashville v. Cooper, 73 U. S. 247; Little York Gold Wash & W. Co. v. Keyes, 95 U. S. 199; Tennessee v. Davis, 10) U. S. 257; New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 103 U. S. 135; Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 11); Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Atchison, T. &. S. F. R. Co., 112 U. S. 414; Germania Ins. Co. v, Wisconsin, 119 U. S. 473; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. California, 118 U. S. 109; Woodfin v. Phoebus, 30 Fed. Rep. 289.
50 State, Hunt, v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 721.
$ 94 b. Suits involving federal questions are removable. -Suits cognizable in the churts of the United
States on account of the nature of the controversy, and which need not be brought originally in the supreme court, may be brought in or removed to the circuit courts without regard to the character of the parties. The validity of a marshal's proceedings on exeoution depends upon a proper construction of the laws of the United States, so as to present a Federal question, although by U. S. Rev. Stats. sec. 916, the proceeding is to be in accordance with the State law. The fact that a plaintiff rests his case on a common-law liability will not deprive defendant of the right to remove it, if he bases his defense on an Act of Congress. A suit for land claimed under the authority of the United States government, and contested by the other party on the ground of a want of such authority, may be removed to a Federal court from a State court. * A suit to recover damages for acts which constitute a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act, the construction of which is in dispute between the parties, presents a Federal question and is therefore removable.5 So of a suit to procure the removal of a railroad bridge across a navigable river, in which the defendant invokes the protection of Congress, it is removable. Where the whole purpose of a suit in a State court is to test the validity of the consolidation of certain railroad companies, which rests alone on the authority conferred for that purpose by acts of Congress, it is removable.?
1 Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449.
may be1 Fitzgerald v. Missouri P. R. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 812. 2 Leather Mfrs. Nat. Bank v. Cooper, 120 U. S. 778. 3 Kenyon v. Knipe, 46 Fed. Rep. 309. 4 Kenyon v. Knipe, 46 Fed. Rep. 309. 5 Societe Anonyme v. Cook, 40 Fed. Rep. 382.
§ 94 c. What not a Federal question.—A cause is not removable simply because in its progress come necessary to construe or apply an act of Congress. Unless there is a dispute between the parties as to the meaning of the act, there is no Federal controversy between them.' A case does not arise under the laws of the United States, so as to authorize removal, simply because the United States Supreme Court or any other Federal
court has decided in another suit the questions of law involved. 2 Whether or not an obstruction placed in navigable waters is a nuisance is not a Federal question for which a cause can be removed, in the ab.
of a congressional statute on the subject.3 The question whether or not a grantee from the United States or subsequent grantees from him have any littoral rights depends, not on the construction of his grant, but on the local or common law, and presents no Federal question for removal.4 The right to an injunction against copying bottles, labels, etc., after the expiration of a design patent, must be determined by the principles of general jurisprudence, and does not arise under the laws of the United States.5 In an action to abate a liqucr nuisance, defendant's alleged purchase, prior to the statute prohibiting the sale of beer, of valuable property which would be rendered practically valueless by the enforcement of the statute, no federal question was involved. So questions necessarily involved in a controversy growing out of state statutes, municipal ordinances, and an alleged contract between a railroad company and a city, raise no federal question.? Where the right to an office depends on state law, the officer cannot remove the cause to the circuit court. If the courts of one State gave a wrong construction to the laws of another State, the error cannot be corrected by means of a transfer to the circuit court; it can be reviewed only on a writ of error.9 A proceeding by the State to enforce its laws must be done through agencies of the State, and any Federal question involved must be set up in the State court, and then be reviewed in the Supreme Court of the United States. A proceeding for the identification and verification of coupons tendered in payment of taxes, debts, or demands due the State, is not a suit of a civil nature arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 11 The mere fact that a suit in a State court is brought on a judgment recovered in a Federal court does not entitle the defendant to removal. 12
6 Judge v. Arlen, 71 Iowa, 136. 7 State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 391. 8 Dubuclet v. Louisiana, 103 U. S. 550. 9 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 108 U. S. 18. 10 Dey v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 82. 11 Stewart v. Virginia, 117 U. S. 612.
12 Provident Sav. L. Assur. Society v. Ford, 114 U. S. 635. See Rand v. Walker, 117 U. S. 340.
§ 94 d. Constitutional provisions.—Congress may provide for the removal of causes from State to Federal courts, authorize its removal from its then condition, prescribe the time in which to exercise the right, and confer original jurisdiction by such removal.* This power, given by implication, is the indirect means by which Federal courts acquire jurisdiction. It may give jurisdiction in cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, although such cases may involve other questions of law or fact,® when such a question forms an ingredient of the original cause; and no State can take away the privilege conferred upon citizens of other States to sue in the Federal courts;s nor can parties by agreement oust the jurisdiction of the Federal courts.9 A statute requiring an agreement from a foreign corporation not to remove a cause is void;10 but a conditional license to transact business in a State may be revoked if such re. moval is made. 11 Under the Constitution of the United States, suits may be made removable after as well as before judgment. 12 The Constitution of the United States secures to defendants who are citizens of another State than that in which suit is brought an absolute right to remove their cases into the Federal court, upon compliance with the terms of the law.13 Congress has power to authorize the removal of a suit arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States from a State court to a Federal court, although a State may be one of the parties. 14 If the case, whether civil or criminal, be one to which the judicial power of the United States extends, its removal to the Federal court does not invade State jurisdiction. 15 Where a suit is one which by law can be removed into the courts of the United States, Congress can prescribe for it the law of limitations, not only for those courts, but for all
1 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 374; Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247; Railroad Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Murray v. Patrie, 5 Blatchf. 343; Fisk v. N. P.R. CO., 6 Blatchf. 362; Johnson v. Monell, Woolw. 390; McCormick v. Humphrey, 27 Ivd. 144; Tod v. Fairfield, 15 Ohio St. 377; Hodgson v. Millward, 3 Grant Cas. 412; Kulp v. Ricketts, 3 Grant Cas. 420; Greely v. Townsend, 25 Cal. 604.
? Andrews v. Garrett. 1 Flippen, 443; Ins. Co. v. Dunn, 19 Wall. 214; Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10; S. C. 3 Cent. L. J. 371.
3 Clark v. Dick, 1 Dill. 8; Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10. 4 Murray v. Patrie, 5 Blatchf. 313. 5 Railroad v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304. 6 Tennessee v. Davis, 105 U. S. 257; S. C. 10 Cent. L. J. 231.
7 N. O. M. & T. R. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 351; Omaha Horse R. Co. v. Cable T. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 727.
8 Mason v. Boom Co., 3 Wall. Jr. 252
9 Davis v. Packara, 31 U. S. 41, 32 U. S. 276; Ducat v. Chicago, 77 U. S. 415; Cobb v. N. E. Ins. Co., 6 Gray, 192; Hobbs v. Manhattan Ins. Co., 56 Me. 421.
10 Morse v. Ins. Co. 807 U. S. 496; Railroad Co. v. Pierce, 27 Ohio St. 155; Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 91 U. S, 533; Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Doyle, 6 Biss. 463; but see Cont. Ins. Co. v. Kasey, 13 Alb. L. J. 311; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Best, 23 Ohio Sú. 105.
11 State v. Doyle, 40 Wis. 175; Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 15 Alb. L. J. 267; but see Hartford F, Ins. Co. v. Doyle, 6 Biss. 461.
12 Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10; Kellogg v. Hughes, 3 Dill. 357. 13 Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 111 U. S. 419. 14 Ames v. Kansas, 111 U.S. 449; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 443. 15 Mitchell v. Clark, 110 U. S. 633. 16 Ex parte Virginia ("Virginia v. Rives "), 100 U. S. 313.
§ 94 e. Restriction under Act of 1887.-Under the Act of 1887, no cause can be removed unless the circuit court would or could have had original jurisdiction of the controversy involved. The third clause of the second section of the Act of 1887, relating to the removal of the second section of the Act of March 3, 1875, governs that class of cases only where there are two or more controversies involved in the same suit, one of which is wholly between citizens of different States; and under the Act of 1887, the right of removal in the cases mentioned is limited to one or more of the defendants actually interested in such separable controversy, and does not extend to the plaintiffs therein.? In cases involving but a single controversy, where the jurisdiction of the court depends only upon the citizenship of the parties, the right of removal is governed solely by the second clause of the second section of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1887, and