Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

(Download) "Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Soderberg." by Supreme Court of the United States ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Soderberg.

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Soderberg.
  • Author : Supreme Court of the United States
  • Release Date : January 23, 1903
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 74 KB

Description

1. Motion was made to dismiss this appeal for the reason that, as the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was invoked upon the ground of diverse citizenship, the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final, under section 6 of the Court of Appeals act of 1891, as interpreted by the decisions of this court in Colorado Central Mining Co. v. Turck, 150 U.S. 138; Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U.S. 408, and Press Publishing Co. v. Monroe, 164 U.S. 105. But, to impress the attribute of finality upon a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, it must appear that the original jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was dependent "entirely" upon diverse citizenship. That is not the case here. Plaintiffs bill does indeed set up a diversity of citizenship as one ground of jurisdiction, but as it appears that its title rests upon a proper interpretation of the land grant act of 1864 as to the exception of non-mineral lands, there is another ground wholly independent of citizenship under that clause of section 1 of the act of 1888, 25 Stat. 433, clothing the Circuit Court with jurisdiction of all civil suits involving over $2000, "and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States." If the case made by the plaintiff be one which depends upon the proper construction of an act of Congress, with the contingency of being sustained by one construction and defeated by another, it is one arising under the laws of the United States. Doolan v. Carr, 125 U.S. 618; Cooke v. Avery, 147 U.S. 375. Under the allegations of the bill the fact that the Land Department had not determined whether the land in question was mineral or non-mineral, does not involve a question of fact, as the facts are admitted, but solely a question of law whether land valuable for its granite is mineral or non-mineral under the terms of the grant. Morton v. Nebraska, 21 Wall. 660. The fact that a patent issued pending suit is neither set up in the pleadings nor


PDF Books "Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Soderberg." Online ePub Kindle