Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1893-04-04
INTERESTING POINT
REVIEWED IN TEE FEDERAL COURT YES
TERDAY.
The Question Of Jurisdiction in a Case Where
Transfer Of Interests Affecting citizenship
Was Maie-0Aer Court News.

An interesting and important point
was argued before Judge Jackson, in
the United Ststes Circuit Court, yes
terdaY.
The cause was that C. R. Thomas
and others v. Hukill, arising out Of an
oil transaction in Monongalia county,
which has been pending in the State
Courts, in various shapes, for some
thing like three years, within that time
Jacob C. VanWaRner and T. c. MILL
can, two Of the plaintiffs, transferring
their interest to Thomas, who is now
the sole plaintiff.
The case came before the Federal
Court on a motion by defendant to
docket the cause, which was resisted by
District Attorney SturgiSs, who wanted
10 90 90 10 the Circuit Court Of Monon-
gala, on the ground Of want of juris-
diction, because OF the above transfer
of interests. Judge Okey johnson ap-
pearcd for the defense, making the
motion to docket, aud made a yerv
strong argument, quoting from numer-
Gus Federal cases 20 show that the case
could come properly before the Court,
and asserting that there was that
diversity OF citizenship which was con-
templated by the United States Statutes,
notwithstanding the transfer. In
his reply, Mr.. Sturgiss took the
ground that Jurisdiction obtained as of
the status of the parties at the time
Of the institution of the suit, and that
no subsequent act OF the parties to
IT,, either by personal removal from
a State or by transfer Of interests,
could effect that status, holding that If
this proposition was not true, the par
ties TO q suit would themselves have
the power 70 either confer or deprive
Jurisdiction. He held that the case at
bar did not disclose that the parties
were of diverse citizenship, but showed,
on the contrary, that they were not
diverse. The decisions OF the Supreme
Court Of the United States, he said, bad
established the doctrine that no act Of
the parties themselves could confer or
deprive the Court Of jurisdiction, and
he held the Court should take the case
as 10 found it originally. In concluding,
Mr.. SturgiSs said he wanted the matter
settled right, and with perfect under
standing, so that after trial and YER
diet, neither the Supreme Court Of APP
peals Of West Virginia, il the case was
remanded 70 the State Courts, nor the
Supreme Court of the United States, II
tried In the Federal Court, would set 10
aside, and the case would thus have to
be all gone over again. IL was very
important matter, and ought to be set
tied right.
Judge Johnson replied to this at some
length, saying, among other things,
that the act of the parties in this case
was not 10 confer jurisdiction, because
il was the parties on the other side who
had made the transfer OF their inter
ests. lie was willing TO risk an appeal.
The Court ordered the motion dock
eted, and took the matter under advise
ment, although Judge Jackson said he
was somewhat inclined TO rule with
Judge Johnson.
The cases of the United States V.
George Fauber, alias Gau5er, internal
revenue; z. II. Duncan, internal reve-
nue.: Z. H. Duncan ADD L. S. Duncan,
postal; j.. T. Higgins, internal revenue;
and Louise bangle, postal, were dock
eted on indictments found at ParkerS-
burg.
The jury was called and checked of.
This morning the dockets will be called,
and trial Of causes proceeded with.
The District Attorney called the at
tention Of the Court TO the cases Of the
State Of West Virginia V. the Belmont
Brewing Company, on eight or ten in
dictments found in this county, there
being an effort to raise Federal Ques-
ton. The cases were ordered dOcketed,
and Prosecuting Attorney Howard will
be present at the trial when the matter