Case Name: The North River Steam Boat Company against A. N. Hoffman and others
Court: New York Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1821-07-02
Citations: 5 Johns. Ch. 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: The North River Steam Boat Company against A. N. Hoffman and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Chancery Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 300–305

Head Matter:
The North River Steam Boat Company against A. N. Hoffman and others.
July 2d.
Where a corporation are plaintiffs, it must appear, that all the persons jointly interested, are entitled to sue in the Courts of the United States, in order to give a Circuit Court of the U. S. jurisdiction of the- cause.
If some of the parties, plaintiffs and defendants, respectively, are citizens of the same State, the cause cannot he removed from the State Court to a Circuit Court of the U. S.
This Court will grant and continue an injunction to enforce the statutes of this State, giving an exclusive right to certain persons to navigate the waters of this State with steam bouts.
BILL filed by the plaintiffs, for an injunction to stop the running of the steam boat, called the United States, on the waters of Hudson river. The bill stated the several statutes of the Legislature of this State of 1798, 1803, 1807, 1808, 1811, and 1820, by virtue of which the plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to the exclusive right and privilege, for the time therein limited, of employing and using boats propelled by fire or steam, upon the navigable waters of this State. The bill charged, that the plaintiffs, and those from whom they derived title, had been in the uninterrupted use and enjoyment of this exclusive privilege, un <ler the protection of the laws, for the last ten years and upwards, and had laid out, in the purchase of such right, and in steam boats, the sum of $600,000.. That the defendants had lately combined to build a steam boat to invade and destroy the right of the plaintiffs, and were actually engaged in that tresspass, and navigating the Hudson river, and carrying passengers to and from JYew-York and Albany.
The bill was sworn to, and, according to the direction of the Chancellor, due previous notice of the motion for an injunction was given to the defendants.
The defendants regularly entered their appearance to the bill, and immediately presented a petition to remove the cause into the Circuit Court of the United States, tobe holden in New,York, in September next.
In support of their petition, four of the defendants stated, by affidavit, that they were citizens of New-Jersey, and sole owners of the new boat, and were desirous of removing the cause into the Circuit Court of the United States, and offered the requisite security. It was further stated, by one of the defendants, upon affidavit, that the boat United States had been enrolled, and a coasting licence obtained for her, from the custom house at Perth Amboy, in New-Jersey, and had regularly cleared out from Perth Amboy for Albany, and was intended to carry, on freight, foreign merchandize, on her trips between Albany and Perth Amboy, and also to carry passengers ; and that the boat had regularly cleared out, on each trip from Perth Amboy, and duly reported herself to the surveyor of the port of Albany.
In opposition to the petition for removal of the cause, one of the plaintiffs, or a member of the company, stated by affidavit, that he was secretary, and kept the books of the company, and that all transfers of shares or stock were made upon the books, and that three of the stockholders, whom he named, were citizens of Connecticut, and another a citizen of New-Jerscy, and another a citizen of Pennsylvania, and that they were all residents in those States; and the fact of their residence in those Stales, respectively, for several years past, was proved by the affidavit of another person.-
The cause was argued by Calden and T. A. Emmet, for the plaintiffs, and by Wells, D. B. Ogden, W. A. Duer, and Woodward, for the defendants.
The counsel for the plaintiffs contended,
1. That the injunction ought to be allowed upon the matter of the bill, and before the defendants were permitted to appear and present their petition.
2. That the case was not within the act of Congress allowing a removal.
3. That the merits of the case were with them, and had been setled by two unanimous decisions of the Court of Errors ; and this case could not be distinguished from' those cases.
The counsel, in support of these points, cited 3 Dallas, 382. 4 Dallas, 7. 12. 22. 1 Cranch, 343. 2 Cranch, 126. 3 Cranch, 267. 5 Cranch, 57. 1 Wheaton, 91. 3 Wheaton, 501. 9 Johns. Rep. 507. 17 Johns. Rep. 488. The counsel for the defendants contended for the reverse of all the above points, and cited 3 Wheaton, 591.

Opinion:
The Chancellor.
The petition to remove the cause to the Circuit Court of the United Slates, cannot be granted, because the Circuit Court have not cognizance of the case. If the petition is granted, the cause will undoubtedly be dismissed from the Circuit Court, when it meets at Jfem-York, in September; and in the mean time, the defendants will be left to reap undisturbedly the profits of their illegal invasion of the plaintiffs' privilege. It appears, undeniably, by the bill, and by the afli davits in aid of it, that some of the members of the association of the plaintiffs are citizens of other S tate, and one of them a citizen of Mew-Jersey. Now, it has been repeatedly decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, (Strawbridge v. Curtis, 3 Cranch, 267. Hope Insurance Company v. Boardmen, 5 Cranch 57. Bank of the U S. v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61. Corporation of M. Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91. Cameron v. M'Roberts, 3 Wheat. 591.) that the right of a corporation to sue in the Federal Courts, must depend upon the character and citizenship of its several members; and that in order to give the Federal Courts jurisdiction of a case, it must appear, affirmatively and clearly, that all the plaintiffs in the given case, are entitled to sue or be sued in the Federal Courts. Each person concerned in the joint interest must be competent to sue or be sued in those Courts. To apply the doctrine to this case, it will be perceived, at once, that the plaintiffs cannot sue the defendants in the Federal Courts, because some of the plaintiffs and some of the defendants, who are parties to the suit, and have not disclaimed, are, respectively, citizens of this State; and citizens of the same State cannot sue each other in the Federal Courts. So, it appears, also, that one of the plaintiffs is a citizen of Mew-Jersey, and he cannot sue the defendants who are citizens of Mew-Jersey, in the Federal Courts. The parties to the suit must be, as against each other, wholly citizens of different States, or the Federal Courts have no jurisdiction. The Federal Courts say so, themselves, and have uniformly disclaimed any jurisdiction, where the case was not plainly, and by positive averments upon record, brought within their cognizance. (3 Dallas, 382. 1 Cranch, 343. 2 Cranch, 1. 126.) There can be no possible doubt in this case, upon the facts admitted, that this cause could not be decided originally in the Federal Courts, and that, therefore, it not be removed in the way proposed ; and though I may regret the necessity of exercising the jurisdiction which is thrown upon me in this case, yet I have n© alternative. The case can eventually be reviewed in the Supreme Court oi the United Stales; but it must go there, >n the ordinary channel, by means of an appeal from the decision of this Court to the Court of Errors, and from the Court of Errors to that Court.
The motion to remove the cause is consequently denied.
The next question is upon the motion for an injunction founded upon the bill.
On this point, there is still less room for hesitation. The plaintiffs are in possession of exclusive privilege, granted or confirmed by six different Legislatures; and if such a right, flowing from such an authority, be not conclusive and binding upon all our Courts and all our citizens, it would be idle to talk about rights and property, or the security of a government of laws. The validity and constitutionality of these laws were brought into discussion in the Court of Errors, in March, 1812, in the cause of Livingston v. Van Ingen, and the Court unanimously declared these laws to be valid and constitutional.—The defendants have, however, got their boat enrolled and licensed under the laws of the United States, as a coasting vessel, and so had the defendant in the cause of Ogden v. Gibbons, in which the parties were citizens of New-Jersey; and yet it was decided by the Court of Errors, with the same unanimity, in January, 1820, that the circumstance of the enrolment and license made no alteration in the case, and gave the steam boat no additional right to disturb the plaintiffs in the enjoyment of their exclusive privilege under the several statutes of this State. Whenever the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that the privilege granted under our statutes is against the constitution of the Union, it will be in time to abandon the statutes, and give up the protection of the boats navigating under, that sanction. But no such decision has been made, or is anticipated, and the present ease cannot but excite surprize for the temerity and infatuation with which the laws are once more attempted to be infringed. This Court has no alternative left. It 0 is bound to declare and to enforce the law as it stands, and the injunction must be granted according to the prayer of the bill.