City of Savannah v. Holst
| Decision Date | 10 October 1904 |
| Docket Number | 1,394. |
| Citation | 132 F. 901 |
| Parties | MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF SAVANNAH et al. v. HOLST et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William Garrard and Alexander A. Lawrence (Wm. W. Osborne, on the brief), for appellants.
Walter G. Charlton and J. Ferris Cann, for appellees.
Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and TOULMIN, District Judge.
The original bill in this case was filed by J. B. Holst and seven others, all citizens of Georgia, against the city of Savannah, a municipal corporation chartered under the laws of Georgia, and the Savannah Electric Company, a corporation organized and chartered under the laws of Georgia. Relief was prayed for by injunction. The Circuit Court granted a temporary injunction, and the decree taking jurisdiction of the case and granting the injunction is assigned as error.
The complainants being citizens of Georgia, and the defendant corporations, for purposes of jurisdiction, being considered citizens of that state also, the court below had no jurisdiction of the case by reason of the diverse citizenship of the parties. After a restraining order had been granted pursuant to the prayer of the bill, and after the defendants had answered, denying the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court Emma L. Carrington was, on her petition asserting her interest in the suit and alleging that she was a citizen of New York, made a party complainant to the bill. The bill then presented a case in which eight citizens of Georgia and one citizen of New York, as co-complainants, were suing two Georgia corporations. The bill, as amended, was still amenable to the objection of want of jurisdiction so far as the same is based on citizenship, for the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction of a suit in which one of the plaintiffs and the defendants are citizens of the same state. Blake v McKim, 103 U.S. 336, 26 L.Ed. 563. The claim on the part of the complainants that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the case was clearly based on the assumption that the suit was one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. The jurisdiction cannot be maintained on this ground unless the suit involves a controversy as to the effect or construction of the Constitution or laws of the United States, upon the determination of which the result depends. 'And it must appear on the record,' said the court in Western Union Telegraph Company v. Ann Arbor Railroad Company, 178 U.S. 239, 20 Sup.Ct. 867, 44 L.Ed. 1052 'by a statement in legal and logical form, such as it required in good pleading, that the suit is one which does really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy as to a right which depends on the construction of the Constitution or some law or treaty of the United States before jurisdiction can be maintained on this ground. ' We are of the opinion that the record before us does not meet the requirements of this rule. It is true that the bill contains the general averment, found in many records where the jurisdiction has been denied, that the acts of the defendants sought to be enjoined 'would deprive plaintiffs of their property rights without due process of law, and in contravention of the Constitution of the United States. ' This conclusion of the pleader is not controlling. We must look to the case made by the bill. The bill shows that the plaintiffs own lots fronting on Gwinnett street, in Savannah, and 'have certain property rights' in Gwinnett street, 'of which they have been in daily use'; that the electric company, one of the defendants, is proceeding to erect poles and string wires and lay tracks for the operation of its cars upon that street under the 'pretended authority of a resolution passed by the mayor and alderman of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Louisville v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.
...... Constitution or laws of the United States, and the action. would not be based upon any federal question. Mayor,. etc., v. Holst, 132 F. 901, 65 C.C.A. 449; New. Orleans v. Benjamin, 153 U.S. 424, 14 Sup.Ct. 905, 38. L.Ed. 764; Hamilton Gas, etc., Co. v. Hamilton City,. 146 ... right. The cases of Hamilton Gas, etc., Co. v. City of. Hamilton, 146 U.S. 258, 13 Sup.Ct. 90, 36 L.Ed. 963, and. Savannah, Thunderbolt, etc., Ry. v. Savannah, 198. U.S. 392, 25 Sup.Ct. 690, 49 L.Ed. 1097, especially the. former are much in point upon the jurisdictional ......
-
James v. Duckworth
...36 L.Ed. 963, restricted its decision to the interpretation of state laws impairing the obligation of contracts. In Mayor of City of Savannah v. Holst, 5 Cir., 132 F. 901, the facts presented no dispute about the construction of the Constitution or laws of the United States, and were confin......
-
City of Dayton, Ohio v. City Ry. Co.
...is a law "of the state," whether it is valid or invalid; if no delegation, then the state is not responsible for it. In Savannah v. Holst (C. C. A. 5) 132 F. 901, this distinction was not observed, and it was held that an ordinance invalid apparently only because of informality in its passa......
-
Cogswell v. BOARD OF LEVEE COM'RS, ETC.
...First Nat. Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70; Armstrong v. Alliance Trust Co., 5 Cir., 126 F.2d 164. 4 Mayor, etc., of City of Savannah v. Holst, 5 Cir., 132 F. 901. Cf. Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co., 168 U.S. 430, 18 S. Ct. 109, 42 L.Ed. 531; McCain v. City of Des Moines, 174 U.S.......