Fowler v. California Toll-Bridge Authority, 9992.

Decision Date03 June 1942
Docket NumberNo. 9992.,9992.
PartiesFOWLER v. CALIFORNIA TOLL-BRIDGE AUTHORITY.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Daniel V. Ryan and Thomas C. Ryan, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Leo A. Cunningham, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

GARRECHT, Circuit Judge.

The appellant filed complaint in the court below against the appellee, alleging jurisdiction as follows:

"That the defendant, California Toll Bridge Authority, is a public board and agency of the State of California, duly created by the Statutes of California, Statutes of 1929, page 1489 and amendments thereto (Act 956 General Laws 1937); that said act provides that the defendant may be sued in its own name; that defendant has its place of business and is a resident of the state of California; that plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the state of Louisiana; that the matter in controversy herein exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00)."

The plaintiff then alleged, for his cause of action, that he had prepared plans for a bridge to be built across San Francisco Bay; that the structure was to cost in excess of $75,000,000; that he was the sole owner of such plans; that defendant appropriated and used said plans, prepared by plaintiff, without his consent and constructed said bridge as delineated in said plans. The plaintiff prayed judgment for more than $2,500,000.

The defendant moved to dismiss, which motion was granted by the trial court upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction, said court stating, in part, "the defendant is in reality the State of California. Since there is no diversity of citizenship, there is no jurisdiction in this court." The plaintiff appeals.

It is at once apparent that the jurisdiction of the court below, if such exists, rests solely upon diversity of citizenship, for no Federal question is presented by the complaint. The only question, therefore, is whether the defendant is in reality the State of California. If so, the court was without jurisdiction and the order of dismissal must be affirmed, because a State is not a "citizen" (Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487, 15 S.Ct. 192, 39 L.Ed. 231), the required diversity of citizenship not being present.

The Act of the California State Legislature creating (and the amendatory acts)1 the California Toll Bridge Authority should reveal whether the Authority is a separate entity and suable as such in the Federal courts, or is merely a channel through which the State of California, the real party in interest, performs part of its necessary governmental functions. The Authority was created, as stated in Section 1 of the Act, to effectuate "the policy of the state of California to acquire and own all toll-bridges situated upon or along any part of the highway of the state, with the end in view of ultimately eliminating all toll charges." The trial court in its opinion aptly summarized the pertinent provisions of the Act and we take the liberty of quoting part thereof:

"The Authority consists of a board of five members, all state officials, acting without compensation. The Authority, in conjunction with the Department of Public Works of the State, determines upon the necessity and desirability of acquiring or constructing any particular toll bridge or other toll highway crossing. If its determination is favorable to the acquisition or construction of any such toll bridge or toll crossing, the Authority is empowered to direct the Department of Public Works to proceed therewith for and in the name of the State of California, and to issue revenue bonds to finance the same. These bonds are issued in the name of the California Toll Bridge Authority and are secured wholly by lien upon the tolls and other revenue obtained from the operation of the particular toll bridge or crossing for the acquisition or construction of which the bonds are issued, and do not constitute obligations of the State. The bonds are signed by the Director of Public Works and countersigned by the Governor. The proceeds from the sale of bonds are paid into the State Treasury and credited to a fund designated the acquisition and construction fund, and used primarily for that purpose. Disbursements from this fund are made upon demand of the Department of Public Works upon warrants drawn by the State Controller. The Department of Public Works, acting for and in the name of the State of California, has charge of the designing, acquisition and construction of all such toll bridges and other toll highway crossings, and of such transportation facilities connected therewith as may be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Krisel v. Duran
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 17, 1966
    ...Cook v. Davis, 178 F.2d 595, 599 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 811, 71 S.Ct. 38, 95 L. Ed. 596 (1950); Fowler v. California Toll-Bridge Authority, 128 F.2d 549 (9th Cir.1942); Sehlmeyer v. Romeo Co., 117 F.2d 996, 998 (9th Cir.1941). Compare Miller v. State of Vermont, 201 F.Supp. 930,......
  • People v. Illinois State Toll Highway Commission
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • May 24, 1954
    ...the State assumed no obligations of the commission as its own. The principal decision holding to the contrary is Fowler v. California Toll-Bridge Authority, 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 549. The facts there, however, are significantly different. Virtually the entire direction of the acquisition of brid......
  • DeLong Corporation v. Oregon State Highway Com'n, Civ. No. 64-79.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
    • August 24, 1964
    ...having similar, if not identical, powers and duties of the defendant, commission, is not a citizen, is Fowler v. California Toll-Bridge Authority, 128 F. 2d 549 (9th Cir., 1942). There, the bridge authority bonds were payable solely from the tolls of the bridge and were paid into the State ......
  • George R. Whitten, Jr., Inc. v. STATE UNIVERSITY CONST. F., 73-1190.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • March 8, 1974
    ...Inc., 290 F.Supp. 911 (D.La.1968) (implied authority present therefore no bearing on jurisdiction). 5 Fowler v. California Toll Bridge Authority, 128 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1942) (tending to show no jurisdiction); Gerr v. Emrick, 283 F.2d 293 (3d Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 817, 81 S.Ct.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT