Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. Hoff

• Decision Date: 07 December 1891
• Citation: 48 F. 340
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: LOS ANGELES FARMING & MILLING CO. v. HOFF et al.

48 F. 340

LOS ANGELES FARMING & MILLING CO. v. HOFF et al.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. California.

December 7, 1891

Stephen M. White and Graces, O'Melveney & Shankland, for plaintiff.

H Bleecker and John D. Pope, for defendants.

ROSS J.

This action was commenced on the 24th of October last in the superior court of Los Angeles county. It is an action of ejectment, the complaint being duly verified. In it, it is among other things, alleged that the plaintiff is, and has been for many years continuously last past, the owner in fee and in the possession of the tract of land upon which the defendants are alleged to have entered on the 8th day of October, 1891, and from which they are alleged to have then ousted the plaintiff, consisting of a part, embracing many thousands of acres, of the Rancho San Fernando, for which rancho it is alleged the government of the United States, on the 8th of January, 1873, duly issued and delivered to one Eulogio F. De Celis a patent, in confirmation of a Mexican grant therefor to him made June 17, 1846, by Pio Pico, then governor of the department of the Californias, and whose title to the portion of the rancho here in controversy it is alleged vested, through various mesne conveyances, in the plaintiff long prior to the defendant's entry upon the premises. It is alleged that the patent so issued has never been set aside or modified in any respect, and that it is still in full force and effect; that for 20 years last past plaintiff and its predecessor in interest have been continuously and uninterruptedly engaged in farming and pasturing the portion of said rancho so owned and possessed by them, and have produced annually large crops of grain thereon, and have erected and maintained at great expense numerous farming stations thereon, and have reduced large areas of said land to a high state of cultivation. It is upon land so patented and possessed that defendants are alleged to have entered, and from which they are alleged to have ousted the plaintiff. The defendants are many in number, and many of them were sued by fictitious names, their true names being, as alleged, unknown to the plaintiff. In the superior court counsel appeared for 'the defendants,' without naming any of them, and in their behalf moved that the case be removed to this court, stating in the petition therefor, in addition to the value of the property in dispute, 'that the controversy in said action involves the construction of the statutes of the United States respecting the location of homesteads on the public lands thereof, and a determination of the rights of the petitioners, who claim an interest in said lands as bona fide holders of homestead locations thereon; and said controversy also involves the determination of the validity of the alleged patent of the United States under which plaintiff claims to own the premises described in the complaint, which patent defendants claim is illegal, fraudulent, null, and void. ' At the same time the petitioners tendered a bond with the required conditions, signed by one of the defendants as principal and by two sureties. The bond was accepted by the superior court and the order of removal made. Upon the filing of the papers in this court a motion was made by the plaintiff to remand the case to the state court. Before its hearing an amended petition was filed on behalf of the defendants, and also an answer to the complaint.

The provisions of the act of congress under which it is contended on behalf of the defendants the case was properly removed and should be retained here, are as follows: 'That the circuit courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the court of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the constitution and laws of the United States;' and 'that any suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, * * * of which the circuit courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction by the preceding section, which may now be pending or which may hereafter be brought in any state court, may be removed by the defendant or defendants therein to the circuit court of the United States for the proper district.' 24 U.S.St.at Large, 552. The original petition filed on behalf of the defendants, and on which the order of removal was made, did not state a single fact upon which the court could exercise its judgment and determine whether the suit in question did or did not arise under the laws of the United States. The statement in respect to that matter in that petition was confined solely to the conclusions of the petitioners, which are manifestly insufficient. It is the duty of the parties to state the facts, and the province of the court to declare the conclusions. The defendants cannot raise a federal issue simply by saying that it exists. It is essential that facts be stated from which the court can see that such a question will be involved. In Trafton v. Nougues, 4 Sawy. 183, Judge SAWYER, in construing a petition for removal, said: 'The only other allegation is that the 'right to said mining ground by plaintiff depends upon the laws of congress, and the right of title of defendant to said mining ground aforesaid must also be determined by the acts of congress under which defendant and petitioner claims...