Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/211/149
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:00:04+00:00

Document:
Louisville, Ky., Oct. 2d, 1871.
The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, in consideration that E. L. Mottley and wife, Annie E. Mottley, have this day released company from all damages or claims for damages for injuries received by them on the 7th of September, 1871, in consequence of a collision of trains on the railroad of said company at Randolph's Station, Jefferson County, Kentucky, hereby agrees to issue free passes on said railroad and branches now existing or to exist, to said E. L. & Annie E. Mottley for the remainder of the present year, and thereafter to renew said passes annually during the lives of said Mottley and wife or either of them.
The bill alleged that in September, 1871, plaintiffs, while passengers upon the defendant railroad, were injured by the defendant's negligence, and released their respective claims for damages in consideration of the agreement for transportation during their lives, expressed in the contract. It is alleged that the contract was performed by the defendant up to January 1, 1907, when the defendant declined to renew the passes. The bill then alleges that the refusal to comply with the contract was based solely upon that part of the act of Congress of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 892), which forbids the giving of free passes or free transportation. The bill further alleges: First, that the act of Congress referred to does not prohibit the giving of passes under the circumstances of this case; and, second, that, if the law is to be construed as prohibiting such passes, it is in conflict with the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, because it deprives the plaintiffs of their property without due process of law. The defendant demurred to the bill. The judge of the circuit court overruled the demurrer, entered a decree for the relief prayed for, and the defendant appealed directly to this court.
Mr. Henry L. Stone for appellant.
Messrs. Lewis McQuown and Clarence U. McElroy for appellees.
Mr. L. A. Shaver for Interstate Commerce Commission as amicus curiae.
Two questions of law were raised by the demurrer to the bill, were brought here by appeal, and have been argued before us. They are, first, whether that part of the act of Congress of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 892), which forbids the giving of free passes or the collection of any different compensation for transportation of passengers than that specified in the tariff filed, makes it unlawful to perform a contract for transportation of persons who, in good faith, before the passage of the act, had accepted such contract in satisfaction of a valid cause of action against the railroad; and, second, whether the statute, if it should be construed to render such a contract unlawful, is in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. We do not deem it necessary, however, to consider either of these questions, because, in our opinion, the court below was without jurisdiction of the cause. Neither party has questioned that jurisdiction, but it is the duty of this court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded. This duty we have frequently performed of our own motion. Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382, 28 L. ed. 462, 463, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510; King Iron Bridge & Mfg. Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225, 30 L. ed. 623, Sup. Ct. Rep. 552; Blacklock v. Small, 127 U. S. 96, 105, 32 L. ed. 70, 73, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1096; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322, 326, 32 L. ed. 132, 134, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1154; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586, 587, 32 L. ed. 543, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 173; Continental Nat. Bank v. Buford, 191 U. S. 120, 48 L. ed. 119, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 54.
'It would be wholly unnecessary and improper, in order to prove complainant's cause of action, to go into any matters of defense which the defendants might possibly set up, and then attempt to reply to such defense, and thus, if possible, to show that a Federal question might or probably would arise in the course of the trial of the case. To allege such defense and then make an answer to it before the defendant has the opportunity to itself plead or prove its own defense is inconsistent with any known rule of pleading, so far as we are aware, and is improper.
'The rule is a reasonable and just one that the complainant in the first instance shall be confined to a statement of its cause of action, leaving to the defendant to set up in his answer what his defense is, and, if anything more than a denial of complainant's cause of action, imposing upon the defendant the burden of proving such defense.
'Conforming itself to that rule, the complainant would not, in the assertion or proof of its cause of action, bring up a single Federal question. The presentation of its cause of action would not show that it was one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.
The interpretation of the act which we have stated was first announced in Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 286, 32 L. ed. 543, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 173, and has since been repeated and applied in Colorado Cent. Consol. Min. Co. v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138, 142, 37 L. ed. 1030, 1031, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 35; Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454, 459, 38 L. ed. 511, 513, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 654; Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 U. S. 102, 107, 39 L. ed. 85, 87, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 34; Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. United States (Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. Alabama) 155 U. S. 482, 487, 39 L. ed. 231, 232, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192; Oregon Short Line & U. N. R. Co. v. Skottowe, 162 U. S. 490, 494, 40 L. ed. 1048, 1049, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 869; Walker v. Collins, 167 U. S. 57, 59, 42 L. ed. 76, 77, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 738; Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co. 168 U. S. 430, 436, 42 L. ed. 531, 533, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 109; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 170 U. S. 226, 236, 42 L. ed. 1017, 1020, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 603; Third Street & Suburban R. Co. v. Lewis, 173 U. S. 457, 460, 43 L. ed. 766, 767, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; Florida C. & P. R. Co. v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321, 327, 44 L. ed. 486, 489, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 399; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 66, 78, 44 L. ed. 673, 680, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 545; Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co. 183 U. S. 185, 188, 46 L. ed. 144, 146, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 47; Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 65, 68, 46 L. ed. 808, 809, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585; Boston & M. Consol. Copper & S. Min. Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co. 188 U. S. 632, 639, 47 L. ed. 626, 631, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 434; Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co. 194 U. S. 48, 63, 48 L. ed. 870, 877, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 598; Joy v. St. Louis, 201 U. S. 332, 340, 50 L. ed. 776, 780, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478; Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313, 334, 50 L. ed. 1046, 1053, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 652. The application of this rule to the case at bar is decisive against the jurisdiction of the circuit court.
It is ordered that the judgment be reversed and the case remitted to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.
VERLINDEN B.V., Petitioner v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA.
BERNARR MACFADDEN v. UNITED STATES.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.