Court Opinion

ID: 9832508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:58:07.221677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:47.538427
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In disposing of this case in the original opinion, we overlooked the amendment of 1911 to the federal Judiciary Act (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1087 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 129]). Section 24 of the act of 1911, after setting out the different clauses of subject-matter of which the federal district courts have jurisdiction, contains this provision: “That the foregoing provision as to the sum or value of the matter in controversy shall not be construed to apply to any of the cases mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs of this section.” The eighth paragraph, conferring jurisdiction, is as follows: “Of all suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating commerce, except those suits and proceedings exclusive jurisdiction of which has been conferred upon the commerce court.” That this suit relates to a subject-matter arising under a law regulating commerce there can hardly be any question; and it is also true that it belongs to a class “of which exclusive jurisdiction has not been conferred upon the commerce court.” That being true, the federal court has original jurisdiction, regardless of the amount in controversy. We therefore conclude that we were in error in affirming the judgment of the county court
The judgment of affirmance will therefore be set aside, and judgment here rendered reversing and remanding the cause.