Barnhart v. Western Maryland Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 11 June 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 4918.,4918. |
Citation | 128 F.2d 709 |
Parties | BARNHART et al. v. WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Isaac Lobe Straus, of Baltimore, Md., for appellants.
Walter C. Capper, of Cumberland, Md., and Eugene S. Williams, of Baltimore, Md., for appellee.
Before PARKER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges, and PAUL, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, dismissing plaintiff-appellants' complaint. Judge Chesnut granted defendant-appellee's motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) the District Court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, (2) the complaint failed to state a valid claim or cause of action, and (3) the action, if any, had long been barred by limitations and laches.
The action was instituted by seven individuals who constituted a "committee representing and acting for the Federation of Shop Craft Employees, Maintenance of Way Employees, and Signal Man Employees of the Western Maryland Railway", on behalf of themselves and approximately 1,200 other alleged employees of the Railway Company. The complaint is in the nature of a bill in equity asking for an injunction, an accounting, and a determination of appellants' status or relationship. The origin and history of appellants' grievances are narrated in the prolix complaint which exceeds 17 pages in length. In this respect, the bill is contrary to both the spirit and the express requirement of Rule 8(a) of the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, which provides that the pleading shall contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends and a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. For purposes of brevity, therefore, we adopt as fair and complete, the concise, but fully ample and accurate, analysis of the complaint as summarized by Judge Chesnut in the opinion below (41 F.Supp. 898, 899):
We now proceed to discuss each of the grounds assigned by the court below in granting appellee's motion to dismiss the complaint.
Jurisdiction of the District Court.
There is literally nothing in appellants' complaint to indicate that the federal courts have jurisdiction over this controversy, apart from the fact that no jurisdictional allegation is made. Since the question of jurisdiction must be determined from the face of the complaint, Carolina & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Town of Lincolnton, 4 Cir., 33 F.2d 719, we have carefully examined the statements presented in that pleading. No claim to diversity of citizenship is there made, and the only possible ground for jurisdiction is whether there are in the complaint sufficient allegations to disclose that the controversy is one arising under the laws of the United States, inasmuch as the complaint fails to allege that any provision of either the federal constitution or a federal treaty is involved.
The United States District Courts are given...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DelCostello v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF TEAMSTERS
...414 U.S. 861, 94 S.Ct. 78, 38 L.Ed.2d 112 (1973); Barnhart v. Western Maryland R. Co., 41 F.Supp. 898, 904-05 (D.Md.1941), aff'd, 128 F.2d 709 (4th Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 671, 63 S.Ct. 75, 87 L.Ed. 538 13 Paper No. 54, at 18. 14 In Chevron Oil, the Supreme Court outlined the thr......
-
Holsey v. Bass
...from the complaint. Barnhart v. Western Maryland Ry., 41 F.Supp. 898 902 (D.Md. 1941) dicta raised by motion to dismiss aff'd 128 F.2d 709 (4 Cir. 1942) cert. denied, 317 U.S. 671, 63 S.Ct. 75, 87 L.Ed. 538 (1942) Cornish v. Harlan, 562 F.2d 45 (4 Cir. 1977) (emphasis added); contra, Allard......
-
Hales v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
...State Bank, 397 F.2d 124 (8th Cir. 1968); Chasis v. Progress Mfg. Co., 382 F.2d 773, 776 (3rd Cir. 1967); Barnhart v. Western Md. Ry. Co., 128 F.2d 709, 714 (4th Cir. 1942). Not utilizing the statute, 28 U.S.C. 1653, available to allow amendment in this court, but deciding in the abstract a......
-
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.
...the contract is a patent license.” See Bonzel v. Pfizer, Inc., 439 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed.Cir.2006) ; see also Barnhart v. W. Md. Ry. Co., 128 F.2d 709, 714 (4th Cir.1942) (collecting Supreme Court cases). Even if a court, in interpreting a contract and assessing damages, “deems it appropriat......