Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

* your petitioner verily believes, | nary "inhabitant" of a State, as that term is ourt never acquired jurisdiction, used in said section 739. This mode of acquir ent is invalid and void, and that ing personal jurisdiction of a foreign corporad personal service as aforesaid is al- tion applies to the Federal Courts as well as to swer in the present action, and the State Courts. See Ex parte Shollenberger, of this action will necessarily in- 96 U. S., 369 [Bk. 24, L. ed. 853]. Again; "estruction and effect of the said jurisdiction may also be acquired by the actual Ted States, to wit: the 739th sec-appearance of such a corporation to a suit d United States Revised Statutes. brought against it in the United States Circuit And your petitioner further says, Court. So that merely alleging that the deed and verily believes, that the fendant was not an inhabitant of Ohio, and was this action is not the real party in not found there, and was not personally served been but that said Cochran is the with process by itself or its officers, was not interest, and that said alleged as- sufficient to raise a defense under section 739 of ****t a merely colorable; that it was made want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court, withcasderation and merely for the out also negativing service of process on an peecuting and collecting said judg. agent of the defendant in Ohio and the actual benefit of said Cochran, and to avoid appearance of the defendant to the suit; for, cy of said Cochran's giving security want of jurisdiction set up to avoid a judgment * as a tecresident of this State, and to must be shown with the greatest certainty. The d, if possible, prevent the transfer petition of removal is very careful not to negato the United States Courts, and tive these important contingencies, and that, in troversy in this action is in reality the face of the allegation of the complaint that bance between the defendant and the defendant did appear to the suit, and did Charles Cochran, who are citizens of answer the petition and appear at the trial. to wit: the defendant is in law Hence we say that the allegation of a defense New York, and said Cochran a under the statute is clearly evasive and inconsequential, and we are not at all surprised to find that when the record of the Ohio suit was produced it showed that the defendant's agent was served with process, and that the defendant did actually appear to the suit and answer the petition, and did appear at and contest the trial, which lasted for a fortnight.

L

then concluded with the proffer and a prayer for removal of the cause sal form. The court refused to recase and the trial proceeded and reerdict and judgment for the plaindzment is brought here by the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

for our consideratiou is, whethpetition as presented, and the her then stood, the application Tould have been granted.

nd of removal set forth in the effect, that the defendant had a under section 739 of the Revised United States, which defense jdment sued on was absolutely of purisdiction in the court, beforbids any suit to be brought al process before either of the rts against an inhabitant of les in any other district than that an inhabitant, or in which he the time of serving the writ; d that the suit was by original that sad process was never served the defendant in Ohio (the deNew York corporation) or upon there, and that the defendant

Reading the petition for removal, therefore, in the light of the pleadings on file when it was presented, we are satisfied that the first ground of removal set out therein was insufficient.

The second ground was, in effect, that the assignment of the judgment by Cochran to Ford was colorable merely, and that the real party in interest was Cochran, who was a citizen of Ohio, and as to whom the defendant, being a citizen of New York, was entitled to removal of the cause, and should not be deprived of its right by the fraudulent assignment. The plain answer to this position is, that the action was nevertheless Ford's, and as against him there was no right of removal. If he was a mere tool of Cochran, and if the latter was the person really interested in the cause, the action could not have been sustained; for the Code of Procedure of New York declares, that "every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest," except in a few cases not including this, and not alone in New York, but anywhere, if it could be shown that the assignfa defense under the section ment was fraudulent as against the defendant, Jarly evasive and inconsequen- it would be void, and this fact would be a deto Deary that a corporation fense to the action brought by the assignee. We tabitant of a State, or should know of no instance where the want of conshould be personally served sideration in a transfer, or a colorable transfer, ugh its officers, in order that of a right of action from a person against whom art of the United States sitting in the defendant would have a right of removal have jurisdiction of a personal to a person against whom he would not have Its well known that corpora- such a right, has been held a good ground for ter of the defendant, desirous removing a cause from a State to a Federal a S'ate other than that in Court. Where an assignment of a 'cause of save their domicil, are generally action is colorably made for the purpose of are an agent therein to receive giving jurisdiction to the United States Court, *** devem for them. This is exacted as the fifth section of the Act of Congress of f her doing business in such State, March 3, 1875, relating to removals, has now emma turperation, differs from an ordi- given to the Circuit Court power to dismiss or

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

- mhabitant of Ohio.

[640]

[641]

[642]

remand the cause at any time when the fact is
made to appear. And by analogy of this law,
it may, perhaps, be a good defense to an action
in a State Court, to show that a colorable assign-
ment has been made to deprive the United
States Court of jurisdiction but, as before said,
it would be a defense to the action, and not a
ground of removing that cause into the Federal
Court. We think, therefore, the second ground
of removal was also insufficient.

It is suggested, however, that a suit on a
judgment recovered in a United States Court
is necessarily a suit arising under the laws of
the United States, as much so as if the plaintiff
or defendant were a corporation of the United
States; and hence that such a suit is removable
under the Act of March 3, 1875.

FORT LEAVENWORTH RAILROAD
COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

PERCIVAL G. LOWE, Sheriff of the
COUNTY OF LEAVENWORTH.

(See S. C., Reporter's ed., 525-542.)

Constitutional law-jurisdiction over lands, within a State, occupied by the United Stateswhen exclusive in United States-conditional grant to United States.

over lands within a State purchased with its con1. The legislative power of Congress is exclusive sent by the United States for a constitutional purpose.

a State in any other way than by purchase with its 2. Where the United States acquires lands within consent, forts, arsenals or other public buildings powers, will be free from any such interference and ment, as instrumentalities for the execution of its jurisdiction of the State as would destroy or impair their effective use for the purposes designed. But, lative power of the State over the places acquired when not used as such instrumentalities, the legis will be as full and complete as over any other places within its limits.

It is observable that the removal of the cause was not claimed on any such broad ground as this; but so far as the character of the case was concerned, only on the ground that the defend-erected thereon for the use of the General Governant had a defense under section 739 of the Revised Statutes, specifying what the defense was; and we have already shown that that ground of removal, as stated in the petition, was insufficient. But, conceding that the defendant is now entitled to take its position on the bro-der ground referred to, is it tenable and sufficient for the purpose?

What is a judgment, but a security of reword showing a debt due from one person to another? It is as much a mere security as a treasury note, or a bond of the United States. If A brings an action against B, trover or otherwise, for the withholding of such securities, it is not therefore a case arising under the laws of the United States, although the whole value of the securities depends upon the fact of their being the obligations of the United States. So if A have title to land by patent of the United States and brings an action against B for trespass or waste, committed by cutting timber, or by mining and carrying away precious ores, or the like, it is not therefore a case arising under the laws of the United States. It is simply the case of an ordinary right of property sought to be enforced. A suit on a judgment is nothing more, unless some question is raised in the case (as might be raised in any of the cases specified), distinctly involving the laws of the United States such a question, for example, as was ineffectually attempted to be raised by the defendant in this case. If such a question were raised, then it is conceded it would be a case arising under the laws of the United States.

These considerations show a wide distinction, as it seems to us, between the case of a suit merely on a judgment of a United States Court, and that of a suit by or against a United States corporation; which latter, according to the masterly analysis of Chief Justice Marshall in Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat., 738, is pervaded from its origin to its close by United States law and United States authority.

Without pursuing the subject further, we
conclude with expressing our opinion, that this
last ground of removal, like those already con-
sidered, was insufficient.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of New
York is affirmed.

True copy. Test:

States may be upon such conditions as the State

3. The cession of lands by a State to the United may see fit to annex not inconsistent with the free

and effective use of such lands for the purposes in

tended.

4. After the admission of the State of Kansas the United States retained only the rights of an ordinary proprietor in the Fort Leavenworth Military cution of the powers of the General Government, Reservation; except as an instrument for the exethat part of the tract, which was actually used as a fort or military post, was beyond such control of its use for those purposes. The clause of the Act of the State, by taxation or otherwise, as would defeat the Legislature of Kansas of February 23, 1875, to cede jurisdiction over said Reservation to the United States, saving to the State" the right to tax chises and property, on said Reservation" is valid, railroad, bridge and other corporations, their franand a tax upon a railroad paid to the State cannot be recovered back.

[No. 243.] .

Argued Apr. 9, 10, 1885. Decided May 4, 1885.

IN

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas.

This action was brought in the District Court of Leavenworth, Kansas, by the plaintiff in error, to recover certain taxes paid under an alleged illegal assessment upon property situated within the Fort Leavenworth Military Reservation. The court rendered judgment on demurrer, for the defendant. This judgment having been affirmed, on error, by the court below, the plaintiff sued out this writ of error.

The facts of the case are stated by the court. Messrs. E. E. Cook, Thos. F. Withrow and M. A. Low, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. W. Hallett Phillips, for defendant

in error.

[525)

Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of [526] the court:

The plaintiff, a Corporation organized under the laws of Kansas, was in 1880, and has ever since been, the owner of a railroad in the Reservation of the United States in that State, known as the Fort Leavenworth Military Reservation. In that year its track, right of way,

James H. McKenney, Clerk, Sup. Court, U. 8. franchises, road bed, telegraph line and instru

Cited-115 U. S., 257.

264

ments connected therewith on the Reservation,

527]

were assessed by the board of assessors of the State, and a tax of $394.40 levied thereon, which was paid by the Railroad Company under protest, in order to prevent a sale of the property. The present action is brought to recover back the money thus paid, on the ground that the property, being entirely within the Reservation, was exempt from assessment and taxation by the State.

treaties with the United States, which provided
that without their consent such territory should
not be subject to state jurisdiction, and the Res-
ervation was not within this exception; and that
to restore Federal jurisdiction over the land in-
cluded in the Reservation; it would be necessary
to obtain from the State of Kansas a cession of
jurisdiction, which he had no doubt would upon
application be readily granted by the State Leg-
islature. 14 Ops. Attys-Gen., 33. It does not
appear from the record before us that such ap-
lication was ever made; but, on the 22d of Feb-
ruary, 1875, the Legislature of the State passed
an Act entitled "An Act to Cede Jurisdiction
to the United States over the Territory of the
Fort Leavenworth Military Reservation," the
first section of which is as follows:

"That exclusive jurisdiction be, and the
same is hereby ceded to the United States over
and within all the territory owned by the United
States, and included within the limits of the
United States military reservation known as the
Fort Leavenworth Reservation in said State, as
declared from time to time by the President of
the United States, saving, however, to the said
State the right to serve civil or criminal process
within said Reservation, in suits or prosecu-
tions for or on account of rights acquired, obli-
gations incurred, or crimes committed in sald
State, but outside of said cession and Reserva-
tion; and saving further to said State the right
to tax railroad, bridge, and other corporations,
their franchises and property, on said Reserva-
tion." Laws of Kansas of 1875, p. 95.

The land constituting the Reservation was
part of the territory acquired in 1803 by cession
from France, and, until the formation of the
State of Kansas and her admission into the
Union, the United States possessed the rights of
a proprietor, and had political dominion and
Sovereignty over it. For many years before
that admission it had been reserved from sale
by the proper authorities of the United States
for military purposes, and occupied by them as
a military post. The jurisdiction of the United
States over it during this time was necessarily
paramount. But in 1861 Kansas was admitted
into the Union upon an equal footing with the
original States, that is, with the same rights of
political dominion and soverignty, subject like
them only to the Constitution of the United
States. Congress might undoubtedly, upon such
admission, have stipulated for retention of the
political authority, dominion and legislative
power of the United States over the Reserva-
tion, so long as it should be used for military
purposes by the Government; that is, it could
have excepted the place from the jurisdiction
of Kansas, as one needed for the uses of the
General Government. But from some cause, The question as to the right of the plaintiff
inadvertence perhaps, or overconfidence that to recover back the taxes paid depends upon
a recession of such jurisdiction could be had the validity and effect of the last saving clause
whenever desired, no such stipulation or ex- in this Act. As we have said, there is no evi-
ception was made. The United States, there-dence before us that any application was made
fore, retained after the admission of the State, by the United States for this legislation, but,
only the rights of an ordinary proprietor; ex- as it conferred a benefit, the acceptance of the
cept as an instrument for the execution of the Act is to be presumed in the absence of any dis-
powers of the General Government, that part of sent on their part. The contention of the plain-
the tract which was actually used for a fort or tiff is that the Act of cession operated under
military post was beyond such control of the the Constitution to vest in the United States ex-
State, by taxation or otherwise, as would de- clusive jurisdiction over the Reservation, and
feat its use for those purposes. So far as the that the last saving clause, being inconsistent
land constituting the Reservation was not used with that result, is to be rejected. The Consti-
for military purposes, the possession of the tution provides that "Congress shall have pow-
United States was only that of an individual er to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
proprietor. The State could have exercised, whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten
with reference to it, the same authority and miles square), as may, by cession of particular
jurisdiction which she could have exercised over States and the acceptance of Congress, become
similar property held by private parties. This the seat of the Goverment of the United States,
defect in the jurisdiction of the United States and to exercise like authority over all places
was called to the attention of the government in purchased by the consent of the Legislature of
1872. In April of that year the Secretary of the State in which the same shall be, for the erec-
War addressed a communication to the Attor- tion of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards,
ney-General, inclosing papers touching the Res- and other needful buildings.' Art. 1, § 8.
ervation, and submitting for his official opinion
the questions, whether, under the Constitution,
the reservation of the land for a site as a mili-
tary post and for public buildings took it out
of the operation of the law of March 3, 1859,
11 Stat. at L., 430, and, if so, what action would
be required on the part of the Executive or
Congress to restore the land to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the United States. The Attor-
ney-General replied that the Act admitting Kan-
sas as a State into the Union had the effect to
withdraw from federal jurisdiction all the terri-
tory within the boundaries of the new State,
excepting only that of the Indians having

The necessity of complete jurisdiction over
the place which should be selected as the seat
of government was obvious to the framers of
the Constitution. Unless it were conferred, the
deliberations of Congresss might in times of
excitement be exposed to interruptions_without
adequate means of protection; its members and
the officers of the government be subjected to
insult and intimidation, and the public archives
be in danger of destruction. The Federalist, in
support of this clause in the Constitution, in
addition to these reasons, urged that "a de-
pendence of the members of the General Gov
ernment on the State comprehending the seat

[528]

[529]

[642]

remand the cause at any time when the fact is
made to appear. And by analogy of this law,
it may, perhaps, be a good defense to an action
in a State Court, to show that a colorable assign-
ment has been made to deprive the United
States Court of jurisdiction but, as before said,
it would be a defense to the action, and not a
ground of removing that cause into the Federal
Court. We think, therefore, the second ground
of removal was also insufficient.

It is suggested, however, that a suit on a
judgment recovered in a United States Court
is necessarily a suit arising under the laws of
the United States, as much so as if the plaintiff
or defendant were a corporation of the United
States; and hence that such a suit is removable
under the Act of March 3, 1875.

FORT LEAVENWORTH RAILROAD
COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

PERCIVAL G. LOWE, Sheriff of the
COUNTY OF LEAVENWORTH.

(See S. C., Reporter's ed., 525-542.)

Constitutional law-jurisdiction over lands, within a State, occupied by the United Stateswhen exclusive in United States-conditional grant to United States.

over lands within a State purchased with its con1. The legislative power of Congress is exclusive sent by the United States for a constitutional purpose.

a State in any other way than by purchase with its 2. Where the United States acquires lands within consent, forts, arsenals or other public buildings powers, will be free from any such interference and ment, as instrumentalities for the execution of its jurisdiction of the State as would destroy or impair their effective use for the purposes designed. But, lative power of the State over the places acquired when not used as such instrumentalities, the legis will be as full and complete as over any other places within its limits.

It is observable that the removal of the cause was not claimed on any such broad ground as this; but so far as the character of the case was concerned, only on the ground that the defend-erected thereon for the use of the General Governant had a defense under section 739 of the Revised Statutes, specifying what the defense was; and we have already shown that that ground of removal, as stated in the petition, was insufficient. But, conceding that the defendant is now entitled to take its position on the broder ground referred to, is it tenable and sufficient for the purpose?

States may be upon such conditions as the State

3. The cession of lands by a State to the United

may see fit to annex not inconsistent with the free tended.

and effective use of such lands for the purposes in

United States retained only the rights of an ordi4. After the admission of the State of Kansas the

What is a judgment, but a security of reword
showing_a_debt due from one person to an-
other? It is as much a mere security as a trea-
sury note, or a bond of the United States. If Anary proprietor in the Fort Leavenworth Military
brings an action against B, trover or otherwise,
for the withholding of such securities, it is not
therefore a case arising under the laws of the
United States, although the whole value of the
securities depends upon the fact of their being
the obligations of the United States. So if A
have title to land by patent of the United States
and brings an action against B for trespass or
waste, committed by cutting timber, or by min-
ing and carrying away precious ores, or the like,
it is not therefore a case arising under the laws
of the United States. It is simply the case of
an ordinary right of property sought to be en-

forced. A suit on a judgment is nothing more,
unless some question is raised in the case (as
might be raised in any of the cases specified),
distinctly involving the laws of the United
States such a question, for example, as was in-
effectually attempted to be raised by the de-
fendant in this case. If such a question were
raised, then it is conceded it would be a case
arising under the laws of the United States.

These considerations show a wide distinction,
as it seems to us, between the case of a suit
merely on a judgment of a United States Court,
and that of a suit by or against a United States
corporation; which latter, according to the
masterly analysis of Chief Justice Marshall in
Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat., 738, is pervaded from
its origin to its close by United States law and
United States authority.

Without pursuing the subject further, we
conclude with expressing our opinion, that this
last ground of removal, like those already con-
sidered, was insufficient.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of New
York is affirmed.

True copy. Test:

cution of the powers of the General Government, Reservation; except as an instrument for the exethat part of the tract, which was actually used as a fort or military post, was beyond such control of the State, by taxation or otherwise, as would defeat the Legislature of Kansas of February 23, 1875. to its use for those purposes. The clause of the Act of cede jurisdiction over said Reservation to the United States, saving to the State" the right to tax chises and property, on said Reservation" is valid, railroad, bridge and other corporations, their franand a tax upon a railroad paid to the State cannot be recovered back.

[No. 243.]

Argued Apr. 9, 10, 1885. Decided May 4, 1885.

IN ERROR to the Supreme Court of the

State of Kansas.

of Leavenworth, Kansas, by the plaintiff in
This action was brought in the District Court
error, to recover certain taxes paid under an al-
leged illegal assessment upon property situated
within the Fort Leavenworth Military Reserva-
tion. The court rendered judgment on demur-
been affirmed, on error, by the court below, the
rer, for the defendant. This judgment having
plaintiff sued out this writ of error.

The facts of the case are stated by the court.
M. A. Low, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. E. E. Cook, Thos. F. Withrow and

in error.
Mr. W. Hallett Phillips, for defendant

[525

the court:
Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of [526]

the laws of Kansas, was in 1880, and has ever
The plaintiff, a Corporation organized under
ervation of the United States in that State,
since been, the owner of a railroad in the Res-
known as the Fort Leavenworth Military Res-
ervation. In that year its track, right of way,

James H. McKenney, Clerk, Sup. Court, U. S. franchises, road bed, telegraph line and instru

Cited-115 U. S., 257.

264

ments connected therewith on the Reservation,

527]

were assessed by the board of assessors of the State, and a tax of $394.40 levied thereon, which was paid by the Railroad Company under protest, in order to prevent a sale of the property. The present action is brought to recover back the money thus paid, on the ground that the property, being entirely within the Reservation, was exempt from assessment and taxation by the State.

The land constituting the Reservation was part of the territory acquired in 1803 by cession from France, and, until the formation of the State of Kansas and her admission into the Union, the United States possessed the rights of a proprietor, and had political dominion and Sovereignty over it. For many years before that admission it had been reserved from sale by the proper authorities of the United States for military purposes, and occupied by them as a military post. The jurisdiction of the United States over it during this time was necessarily paramount. But in 1861 Kansas was admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States, that is, with the same rights of political dominion and soverignty, subject like them only to the Constitution of the United States. Congress might undoubtedly, upon such admission, have stipulated for retention of the political authority, dominion and legislative power of the United States over the Reservation, so long as it should be used for military purposes by the Government; that is, it could have excepted the place from the jurisdiction of Kansas, as one needed for the uses of the General Government. But from some cause, inadvertence perhaps, or overconfidence that a recession of such jurisdiction could be had whenever desired, no such stipulation or exception was made. The United States, therefore, retained after the admission of the State, only the rights of an ordinary proprietor; except as an instrument for the execution of the powers of the General Government, that part of the tract which was actually used for a fort or military post was beyond such control of the State, by taxation or otherwise, as would defeat its use for those purposes. So far as the land constituting the Reservation was not used for military purposes, the possession of the United States was only that of an individual proprietor. The State could have exercised, with reference to it, the same authority and jurisdiction which she could have exercised over similar property held by private parties. This defect in the jurisdiction of the United States was called to the attention of the government in 1872. In April of that year the Secretary of War addressed a cominunication to the Attorney-General, inclosing papers touching the Reservation, and submitting for his official opinion the questions, whether, under the Constitution, the reservation of the land for a site as a military post and for public buildings took it out of the operation of the law of March 3, 1859, 11 Stat. at L., 430, and, if so, what action would be required on the part of the Executive or Congress to restore the land to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. The Attorney-General replied that the Act admitting Kansas as a State into the Union had the effect to withdraw from federal jurisdiction all the territory within the boundaries of the new State, excepting only that of the Indians having

treaties with the United States, which provided that without their consent such territory should not be subject to state jurisdiction, and the Reservation was not within this exception; and that to restore Federal jurisdiction over the land included in the Reservation; it would be necessary to obtain from the State of Kansas a cession of jurisdiction, which he had no doubt would upon application be readily granted by the State Legislature. 14 Ops. Attys-Gen., 33. It does not appear from the record before us that such aplication was ever made; but, on the 22d of February, 1875, the Legislature of the State passed an Act entitled "An Act to Cede Jurisdiction to the United States over the Territory of the Fort Leavenworth Military Reservation," the first section of which is as follows:

"That exclusive jurisdiction be, and the same is hereby ceded to the United States over and within all the territory owned by the United States, and included within the limits of the United States military reservation known as the Fort Leavenworth Reservation in said State, as declared from time to time by the President of the United States, saving, however, to the said State the right to serve civil or criminal process within said Reservation, in suits or prosecu tions for or on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred, or crimes committed in said State, but outside of said cession and Reservation; and saving further to said State the right to tax railroad, bridge, and other corporations, their franchises and property, on said Reservation." Laws of Kansas of 1875, p. 95.

The question as to the right of the plaintiff to recover back the taxes paid depends upon the validity and effect of the last saving clause in this Act. As we have said, there is no evidence before us that any application was made by the United States for this legislation, but, as it conferred a benefit, the acceptance of the Act is to be presumed in the absence of any dissent on their part. The contention of the plaintiff is that the Act of cession operated under the Constitution to vest in the United States exclusive jurisdiction over the Reservation, and that the last saving clause, being inconsistent with that result, is to be rejected. The Constitution provides that "Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square), as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Goverment of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.' Art. 1, § 8.

The necessity of complete jurisdiction over the place which should be selected as the seat of government was obvious to the framers of the Constitution. Unless it were conferred, the deliberations of Congresss might in times of excitement be exposed to interruptions without adequate means of protection; its members and the officers of the government be subjected to insult and intimidation, and the public archives be in danger of destruction. The Federalist, in support of this clause in the Constitution, in addition to these reasons, urged that "a dependence of the members of the General Gov. ernment on the State comprehending the seat

[528]

[529]

« ForrigeFortsett »