The herald., 1894-10-12
JUDGE ROSS HAS JURISDICTION
He Files an Elaborate and I'm.
pOrtant Opinion
In the Government Suit Against the
Southern Pacific.
Another Branch OF the Celebrated Land
Gases Against the Railroad.
Thcy Must Answer the
Complaint

Judge E. M. Ross in the United States
circuit court yesterday rendered far
reaching decision on the CAGE OF the
United States VS.. the Southern Pacific
Railway company and others. This is
the lates. of what are known "a the
Southern Pacific land cases. By pre-
vious decisions in the other cases an
immense body OF land was ordered to
revert to the government, aud they are
now before the circuit court OF appeals.
The present case was brought later
for additional land not covered by the
other suits. and the railroad company
raised question not rsieed before, the
jurisdiction OF the court.
1t is this matter which Judge Ross
decided yesterday, presenting his views
in long opinion.
In the course of his remarks he says:
The Southern Pacific Railroad COM
pany, the Southern Pacific company and
Gerrit l.. Lansing have appealed espe-
clally. and Iilsd pleas in the nature of
pleas in abatement, Directing to the jur-
isdiction of the court.
Tho plea of the Southern Pacific Rail-
road com pany sets up that it is q corpo-
ration duly organized under the laws of
the state OF California, and, while ad-
uniting that it operates line OF railway
through this judicial district, and main
tains ticket and freight Office and depot
therein. alleges that it is not an inhabit.
ant Of this district, but that it has it's
principal tffice, habitat and domicile in
the city and county OF San Francisco,
state OF California.
The plea of this Southern Pacific COM
pany alleges that it is not an inhabitant
or resident OF this judicial district. but
Ia corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of kentucky,
and having its habitat and domicile i'll
that state.
The plea OF Gerrit J.. Lansing alleges
that he does not reside in this judicial
dent of the city and county of San Fran.
ciaco, in the northern district Of this
state.
Each OF the defendants SO appearing
pray that the suit against them be dis
missed for want of Jurisdiction.
On motion of the government, the
pleas were set down for argument. The
question, therefore, is whether, under
the facts SO alleged in the bill and the
pleas, the court has Jurisdiction to en-
terrain the suit and proceed in the
cause. The court, OF course, takes ju-
dicial notice OF the fact that the state of
California is divided into two judicial
districts. 1t is further aware OF the
fact that it is the established law that
a corporation organized in one of the
United States and in that state only,
cannot be considered a citizsn, an in
habitant or reside1t OF any other state,
and that q corporation created by
state in which there are two or more
judicial districts is to be condidered an
lnha bitant OF that district in which ita
general offices are situated and in which
its general buainess, as distinguished
from its local business. is transacted.
Galveston. etc., railway vs. Gonzales,
Isl U. S., 1876, and cases cited)
The Southern Pacific Railroad COM
pany and D. 0. Mills aud Gerrit l.. Lam
sing, trustees, are, therefore, to BIO re-
garded as citizens and inhabitants of
the northern district OF California; the
Central Trust company as a citizen and
inhabitant Of the state of New York
the Southern Pacific company OF Ken
lucky as citizen and inhabtant OF the
state OF Kentucky, and the Colorado
River Irrigation company as citizen
and inhabitant OF the stats OF Colorado.
And, as the government is not citizen
or inhabitant of any particular state or
dietrict, but is everywhere present
within the territorial limits OF the
United States, none OF the parties to the
suit can be regarded as citizens or in
habitnnts of this judicial district; but
the lands which constitute the subject
Of the suit are situated within this
judicial district.
The court then goes into an exhaus.
tive review OF the decisions bearing
upon the point OF jurisdiction when the
lends in controversy are within the dis
trict, giving his conclusion in the fol-
lowing language:
1.-The principle of these cases, in my
opinion, sustsins jurisdiction here to the
extent ut least of settling the question
of the title OF the lands in dispute.
Whether, should the facts warrant it.
such decree may also include the junc-
ton prayed for by the complainant, up
on the ground that it is but incidental
and auxiliary to the principal relief
sought, or under the principle that
where Jurisdiction is required against
the person by the service of process or
by voluntary appearance, court OF
general Jurisdiction will settle the mat
ter in controversy between the parties,
need not now be determined. The pleas
and motions to dismiss are overruled."
MERITED PROMOTION.