Becker v. Angle, 3506.
Decision Date | 15 November 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 3506.,3506. |
Citation | 165 F.2d 140 |
Parties | BECKER et al. v. ANGLE et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Arnold T. Fleig, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellants.
M. W. McKenzie, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (H. Barney Crawford, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
The first question on this appeal is whether there is jurisdictional diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.
The trial court first considered and decided the case adversely to the complainants (appellants here) on its merits. But, it also held that neither requisite diversity of citizenship nor amount in controversy was shown to exist. Of course, if either of these jurisdictional prerequisites is lacking, the court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter, and we therefore need not consider the correctness of its decision on the merits.
The complaint affirmatively alleges that all the complainants are citizens of the state of Illinois, and the defendants and each of them, citizens and residents of the state of Oklahoma; that the amount in controversy exceeds $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs. Some of the named defendants did not answer, and are in default. Some specifically denied that the amount in controversy exceeded the sum of $3,000, while other answering defendants denied all the allegations in the complaint and demanded proof. On the commencement of trial, the parties stipulated and agreed that the complainants were citizens and residents of the state of Illinois and that the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeded the sum of $3,000, but they did not stipulate that all of the defendants were residents of Oklahoma, or non-residents of the state of Illinois — an essential jurisdictional fact. No other proof was offered to show the residence of the twenty-two defendants, who could not be found in Oklahoma, and were in default.
The Act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 5, 18 Stat. 472, Judicial Code, Section 37, 28 U.S.C.A. § 80, places upon the trial court the duty of enforcing the statutory limitations upon its jurisdiction, and authorizes the court to inquire into the jurisdictional facts and to dismiss or remand the case if lack of jurisdiction appears. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 785, 80 L.Ed. 1135.
One, who invokes the jurisdiction of the court must not only allege the jurisdictional facts, but he has the burden of showing that he is properly in court. "If his allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by competent proof and where they are not so challenged, the court may still insist that the jurisdictional facts be established or the case be dismissed, and for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Centre for Independence of Judges v. Mabey
...409 F.2d 1277, 1282 (10th Cir. 1969) and bears the burden of proof as to jurisdictional facts and allegations. Id., Becker v. Angle, 165 F.2d 140 (10th Cir. 1947); Pettinelli v. Danzig, 644 F.2d 1160, 1161 (5th Cir. 1981); Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 128......
-
Hunt v. Jack V. Waters, D.C., P.C.
...W, Inc., 2012 WL 12931286, at *6 ; and citing Brazell v. Waite, 525 F. App'x 878, 883 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished); Becker v. Angle, 165 F.2d 140, 142 (10th Cir. 1947) ; Moya v. 3316 22nd Ave. Se., CIV 18-0104 JB/JHR, 2018 WL 2447801, at *1 n.2 (D.N.M. May 31, 2018) (Ritter, M.J.); Am. Lu......
-
Butler v. Daimler Trucks N. Am., LLC
...v. Amateur Basketball Ass'n of U.S.A. , 744 F.2d 731, 733 (10th Cir. 1984).10 Pytlik , 887 F.2d at 1376 (citing Becker v. Angle , 165 F.2d 140, 141 (10th Cir. 1947) ); see also Shrader , 633 F.3d at 1248 (citing Wenz , 55 F.3d at 1505 ).11 Dudnikov , 514 F.3d at 1070 (citation omitted).12 B......
-
Reinhart Oil & Gas v. Excel Directional Tech.
...64 L.Ed.2d 425 (1980); see Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Gr. Brit. PLC, 427 F.3d 1238, 1244 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Becker v. Angle, 165 F.2d 140, 142 [10th Cir.1947]["[I]n determining the question of diversity we look to the citizenship of the real parties in interest."] ). An assignee who ......