Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State of Nebraska
| Decision Date | 17 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | 4987. |
| Citation | 251 F. 279 |
| Parties | CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. v. STATE OF NEBRASKA. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
E. P Holmes, of Lincoln, Neb. (Guy C. Chambers, of Lincoln, Neb on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Willis E. Reed, Atty. Gen. (George W. Ayres, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen on the brief), for the State of Nebraska.
Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and TRIEBER and YOUMANS, District judges.
This suit was originally instituted in the district court of Lancaster county, state of Nebraska. Upon motion of plaintiff in error it was removed to the District Court of the United States for Nebraska, Lincoln Division. In the last-named court a jury was waived and the cause was submitted to the court upon the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts. The state recovered judgment. The railway company sued out a writ of error to this court.
The question of jurisdiction was not raised in the court below. There was no motion by the state to remand the case to the state court. The suit was for certain taxes imposed under the laws of Nebraska. A state is not a citizen. Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U.S. 430, 6 Sup.Ct. 799, 29 L.Ed. 962; Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 15 Sup.Ct. 192, 39 L.Ed. 231; Arkansas v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co., 183 U.S. 185, 22 Sup.Ct. 47, 46 L.Ed. 144; Title Guaranty Co. v. Allen, 240 U.S. 136, 140, 36 Sup.Ct. 345, 60 L.Ed. 566. Therefore the court below did not have jurisdiction by virtue of diversity of citizenship. The cause of action stated in the complaint did not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Therefore there could be no jurisdiction on that ground.
The consent of the parties could not confer jurisdiction. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Willard, 220 U.S. 413, 31 Sup.Ct. 460, 55 L.Ed. 521. In the case of M., C. & L. N. Railway Company v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 Sup.Ct. 510, 511 (28 L.Ed. 462), Mr. Justice Matthews, speaking for the court, said:
It thus appears that this court cannot disregard the fact of the want of jurisdiction.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City Bank Farmers Trust Co v. Schnader
...under the laws of the United States (Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454, 14 S.Ct. 654, 38 L.Ed. 511; Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Nebraska (C.C.A.) 251 F. 279). As the statutory remedy, if it be treated as an action at law, would lie only in the state court and is not cogniz......
-
Fienup v. Kleinman
...S. Ct. 460, 55 L. Ed. 521; Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48, 24 S. Ct. 598, 48 L. Ed. 870; Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Nebraska, 251 F. 279, 163 C. C. A. 435. The authorities cited in the majority opinion do not apply to actions in which the jurisdiction of the court ......
-
In re Law
...& Surety Co. v. Idaho, 240 U.S. 136, 36 S.Ct. 345, 60 L.Ed. 566; In re Silvies River (D.C.) 199 F. 495; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State of Nebraska (CCA.) 251 F. 279. It is therefore well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen of another state is not an action between citize......
-
Hertz v. Knudson
...In this case diversity of citizenship is the only ground assigned as conferring jurisdiction. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. State of Nebraska (C. C. A. 8) 251 F. 279, 163 C. C. A. 435; Robertson v. Jordan River Lumber Co. (C. C. A. 5) 269 F. The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution which ......