Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/163/273.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:52:09+00:00

Document:
Bill by Frank Hanford against Griffith Davies and Isabella Davies, his wife, and others. From a decree for defendants (51 Fed. 258), plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. [163 U.S. 273, 274] This cause was determined in the court below upon a demurrer to the bill. The grounds of demurrer were (1) that the bill did not set forth any case entitling the plaintiff to relief; (2) that the circuit court had no jurisdiction.
It was adjudged that the bill did not state a case within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and the question of jurisdiction alone has been certified. 51 Fed. 258.
The statutes of Washington territory in force at the date of the above tax sale, as well as at the date of the execution of the above deed, prohibited the bringing of any suit or proceeding for the recovery of land sold for taxes after the [163 U.S. 273, 275] expiration of three years from the recording of the tax deed of sale, except in cases where the tax had been paid or the land redeemed, or where such suit was brought by the purchaser at the tax sale. The statute also provided that the tax deed should be presumptive evidence of the regularity of all former proceedings.
Immediately after his purchase the plaintiff entered into possession of and improved the premises, paying taxes, and also erecting a dwelling house in which the property of his agent and employ e were kept.
The deed executed in pursuance of the sale ordered by the probate court was taken in the name of the defendant Griffith Davies, but it was in fact for the benefit of himself and his co-defendants.
The defendants purchased at the sale ordered by the probate court, and received the deed made to Griffith Davies, with actual and constructive notice of the plaintiff's title, and of all the facts and circumstances connected therewith. Nevertheless, it is alleged, with the intent to create a cloud upon the plaintiff's title, and to force him to buy off their adverse claim, they conspired together to make their said purchase, and in pursuance of that conspiracy bought in the land, and procured a deed for it. Subsequently, February 25, 1881, they forcibly entered upon and maintained forcible possession of the land until the 1st day of April, 1891, at which time the premises were vacated, and are not now in the actual possession of any one, except so far as the abandonment of possession by the defendants restores the prior possession of the plaintiff.
The bill alleges that the pretended deed of the defendants is of no validity in law or equity, and is a cloud upon the title of the plaintiff, and that the defendants have no estate, right, title, or interest in the lands, or the possession thereof.
The relief asked is a decree that the defendants have no title, interest, or estate in or about the land, or any part thereof, and that the title of the plaintiff is good and valid; that the defendants, and each of them, be forever enjoined from asserting [163 U.S. 273, 278] any title or claim adverse to the plaintiff; that said administrator's deed may be declared invalid, and the record thereof of no effect; and that the plaintiff have such other and further relief as the equity of the case may require.
James B. Howe, for appellant.
James Hamilton Lewis, for appellees.
The bill proceeds upon the ground that the orders of the probate court resulting in the sale of the lands in controversy as the property of Lumley Franklin, and in the conveyance of 1888 to the defendant Davies, impaired the obligation of the alleged contract with the territory, as evidenced by the deed of 1878 to Thaddeus Hanford. But it was not alleged in the bill that the proceedings in the probate court were had under any statute that was repugnant to the constitution of the United States, or which was enacted after the sale and conveyance of these lands by the territory to Thaddeus Hanford. The prohibition upon the passage of state laws impairing the obligation of contracts has reference only to the laws- that is, to the constitutional provisions or to the legislative enactments- of a state, and not to judicial decisions, or the acts of state tribunals or officers under statutes in force at the time of the making of the contract the obligation of which is alleged to have been impaired. Railroad Co. v. Rock, 4 Wall. 177; Water Co. v. Easton, 121 U.S. 388 , 7 Sup. Ct. 916; Wood v. Brady, 150 U.S. 18 , 14 Sup. Ct. 6; Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 103 , 16 Sup. Ct. 80. Therefore, even if it be assumed that the plaintiff had a contract with the territory, and even if t were [163 U.S. 273, 279] further assumed that the constitutional provision in question applied to the legislative enactments of a territory, the court below was without jurisdiction, so far as it depended upon the application of the clause of the constitution protecting the obligation of contracts against impairment by state laws.
It is true, the bill alleges that the probate court, in all of its proceedings, acted 'entirely without jurisdiction, and without color of authority, save as the agent and organ of said territory.' But this allegation of want of jurisdiction in the probate court is too general and indefinite to show that its proceedings were wanting in due process of law. If the purpose was to present a case under the clause of the constitution relating to due process of law, the grounds upon which the federal court could take cognizance of a suit of that character, between citizens of the same state, should have been clearly and distinctly stated in the bill. It is well settled that as the jurisdiction of a circuit court of the United States is limited in the sense that it has no other jurisdiction than that conferred by the constitution and laws of the United States, the presumption is that a cause is without its jurisdiction, unless the contrary affirmatively appears, and that it is not sufficient that jurisdiction may be inferred argumentatively from averments in the pleadings, but the averments should be positive. Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112; Grace v. Insurance Co., 109 U.S. 278, 283 , 3 S. Sup. Ct. 207, and authorities cited. These principles have been applied in cases where the jurisdiction of the circuit court was invoked upon the ground [163 U.S. 273, 280] of diverse citizenship. But they are equally applicable where its original jurisdiction of a suit between citizens of the same state is invoked upon the ground that the suit is one arising under the constitution or laws of the United States. We are not required to say that it is essential to the maintenance of the jurisdiction of the circuit court of such a suit that the pleadings should refer, in words, to the particular clause of the constitution relied on to sustain the claim or immunity in question, but only that the essential facts averred must show, not by inference or argumentatively, but clearly and distinctly, that the suit is one of which the circuit court is entitled to take cognizance. Ansbro v. U. S., 159 U.S. 695 , 16 Sup. Ct. 187.
Without expressing any opinion as to the effect of the proceedings in the probate court, and the sale by the administrator, Hall, upon the rights acquired by the plaintiff under the tax sale at which Thaddeus Hanford purchased, we adjudge that the court below properly sustained the demurrer for want of jurisdiction, and therefore did not err in dismissing the bill.

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