Court Opinion

ID: 8862152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:52:02.836519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:51.797438
License: Public Domain

GILBERT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). In dissenting from that portion of the opinion which deals with the question of the jurisdiction, I am guided solely by what I conceive to be the purport of the decision of the supreme court in the case of Bushnell v. Smelting Co., 148 U. S. 682, 13 Sup. Ct. 771. I am unable to concur in the view *809that the only point decided in that case was that the suggestion of a federal question in a petition for rehearing after judgment comes too, late. The jurisdiction of the supreme court in that case was invoiced upon two grounds: First, that a federal question was presented upon the pleadings in the case and the instructions to the jury, since it was a case arising under section 2326 of the Revised Statutes; and, second, that a federal question was specially presented in the petiiion for rehearing which was'filed in the supreme court of the state of Colorado, asserting rights under section 2322. The first question was inherent in the case, and appeared upon the face of the record. It required no presentation by petition or otherwise. It was in passing upon the second question that the court ruled that the attempt to raise for the first time a federal question in such a petition, after judgment, was too late. But in dealing with the other question the court said:
“It is plainly manifest that neither the pleadings nor the instructions given and refused present my federal question, and an examination of the opinion of the supreme court affirming the action of the trial court as to instructions given, as well as its refusal to give instructions asked by the defendants below, fails to disclose the presence of any federal question. It does not appear from the record that any right, privilege, or immunity under the constitution or laws of the United States was specially sol, up or claimed by the defendant below, or that any such right was denied them, or was even passed upon by the supreme court of the state; nor does it appear, from anything disclosed in the record, that the necessary effect in law of the judgment was the denial of any right claimed under the laws of the United States. The decision of the supreme court of Colorado in no way brought into question the validity, or even construction, of any federal statute, and it certainly did not deny to the plaintiffs in error any right arising out of the construction of the federa) sta t-ii tes.”
In so ruling upon that question the court had under consideration the very question which is before us in the case at bar, namely, whether the fact that a case arises under section 2326 presents, of itself, a question of the construction of a law of congress. The court expressly held that the pleadings suggested no federal question. The pleadings in that case contained the necessary averments and issues to determine the rights of the contesting claimants under section 2326. It so distinctly appears from the opinion. In that respect the case is identical with the case before us. In the present case there is no suggestion of a federal question, unless it be in the fact that the pleadings raise an issue under section 2326. The other questions which the record contains are similar to those which were submitted to the jury in Bushnell v. Smelting Co. The language above quoted from the opinion in that case applies with equal propriety to the case at bar. I find no allegation in the bill in the present case which suggests that a question arises raider a federal statute, or that the rightt of either party to the suit will depend upon the interpretation to be given to such a statute. If there was no federal question in the case of Bushnell v. Smelting Co., there is none in this. The decisions in that case and in other recent cases in the supreme court have established the doeirine that the United States circuit courts cannot entertain jurisdiction of a cause1 upon the ground that it presents a question of a federal nature unless it *810clearly appears from the averments of the complaint or the declaration that in the progress of the trial, and preliminary to an adjudication, the right of the one or the other of the parties to the controversy will depend upon the construction to be given by the court to some provision of the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586, 9 Sup. Ct. 173; Mining Co. v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138, 14 Sup. Ct. 35; Tennessee v. Union & Planters’ Bank, 152 U. S. 454, 14 Sup. Ct. 654; Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 U. S. 102, 15 Sup. Ct. 34. The cases of Jackson v. Roby and Chambers v. Harrington, cited in the opinion of the majority of the court, are not in conflict with the foregoing views of the purport and effect of the decision in Bushnell v. Smelting Co. In Jackson v. Roby no question of the jurisdiction was raised, and it may be assumed' that the case was one of which the court had cognizance, either upon the ground of the diverse citizenship of the parties, or the federal question suggested by the pleadings. The case of Chambers v. Harrington was in the supreme court upon appeal from a territorial supreme court, and hence no question of the jurisdiction could arise. The language of the court in that case, “And as the very essence of the trial is to determine rights by a regular procedure in such court, after the usual methods, which rights are dependent on the laws of the United States, we see no reason why, if the amount in controversy is sufficient in a case tried in a court of the United States, or the proper case is made on a writ of error to a state court, the judgment may not be brought to this court for review, as in other similar cases,” is not inconsistent with the view that, in order that the case made shall be one of federal cognizance, the jurisdiction must be made to appear by a proper averment pointing to the statute which the court shall be called upon to construe. And if, indeed, any expression of the court found in the language so quoted can be construed as countenancing a different doctrine, it is certainly discredited by the later decisions of the supreme court to which reference has been made above.