Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/90422/louisville-nashville-r-co-vs-mottley
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:40:09+00:00

Document:
Appellant Louisville and Nashville R. Co.
The jurisdiction of the circuit court is defined and limited by statute; and, even if not questioned by either party, this Court will, of its own motion, see to it that such jurisdiction is not exceeded.
be set up and which is invalid under some law or provision of the Constitution of the United States.
The circuit court has no jurisdiction, in the absence of diverse citizenship, of a suit brought against a railroad corporation to enforce an alleged contract for an annual pass because, as stated in the bill, the refusal is based solely on the anti-pass provisions of the Hepburn Interstate Commerce Act of June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584.
The practice in such cases is to reverse the judgment and remit the case to the Circuit Court with instructions to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.
"Louisville, Ky., Oct. 2nd 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."
was based solely upon that part of the Act of Congress of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 584, c. 3591, 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 Fifth 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.
violation of the Fifth 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.; Railway Company v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379 , 111 U. S. 382 ; King Bridge Company v. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225 ; Blacklock v. Small, 127 U. S. 96 , 127 U. S. 105 ; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322 , 127 U. S. 326 ; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586 , 128 U. S. 587 ; Continental National Bank v. Buford, 191 U. S. 120 .
"A suggestion of one party that the other will or may set up a claim under the Constitution or laws of the United States does not make the suit one arising under that Constitution or those laws."
"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 only way in which it might be claimed that a federal question was presented would be in the complainant's statement of what the defense of defendants would be, and complainant's answer to such defense. Under these circumstances, the case is brought within the rule laid down in Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, supra. That case has been cited and approved many times since."
The interpretation of the act which we have stated was first announced in Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 286 , and has since been repeated and applied in Colorado Central Consolidating Mining Company v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138 , 150 U. S. 142 ; Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454 , 152 U. S. 459 ; Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 U. S. 102 , 155 U. S. 107 ; Postal Telegraph Cable Company v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482 , 155 U. S. 487 ; Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern Railway Company v. Skottowe, 162 U. S. 490 , 162 U. S. 494 ; Walker v. Collins, 167 U. S. 57 , 167 U. S. 59 ; Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co., 168 U. S. 430 , 168 U. S. 436 ; Galveston &c.; Railway v. Texas, 170 U. S. 226 , 170 U. S. 236 ; Third Street & Suburban Railway Company v. Lewis, 173 U. S. 457 , 173 U. S. 460 ; Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321 , 176 U. S. 327 ; Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company v. Texas, 177 U. S. 66 , 177 U. S. 78 ; Arkansas v. Kansas & Texas Coal Company, 183 U. S. 185 , 183 U. S. 188 ; Vicksburg Waterworks Company v. Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 65 , 185 U. S. 68 ; Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Company v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co., 188 U. S. 632 , 188 U. S. 639 ; Minnesota v. Northern Securities Company, 194 U. S. 48 , 194 U. S. 63 ; Joy v. City of St. Louis, 201 U. S. 332 , 201 U. S. 340 ; Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313 , 202 U. S. 334 . The application of this rule to the case at bar is decisive against the jurisdiction of the circuit court.
Judgment be reversed, and the case remitted to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.

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.