Cochran v. Childs
| Decision Date | 26 October 1901 |
| Docket Number | 790. |
| Citation | 111 F. 433 |
| Parties | COCHRAN v. CHILDS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Lloyd C. Whitman, for appellant.
Charles Hudson, for appellee.
Before JENKINS and GROSSCUP, Circuit Judges, and BUNN, District Judge.
This bill is filed by the appellant (complainant below) for an accounting under an alleged agreement between him and Benajah Williams, deceased, for the prosecution of the business of manufacturing and selling wrappers under patents of the United States issued to Benajah Williams; one dated April 23 1895, and number 537,870, and the other dated April 14, 1896 and numbered 558,244. It is charged that the patents covered inventions of the complainant, and, without his knowledge or consent, the patents were procured by Benajah Williams to be issued to himself; but the bill seems to seek no relief upon that ground. The defendant below (appellee here) demurred to the bill upon the grounds: First, that the cestuis que trustent are necessary parties; second, that the complainant has an adequate remedy at law; third, that the terms of the agreement are insufficiently stated; fourth, that the bill is without equity. The court below sustained the demurrer, and decreed that the bill be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The bill is wholly lacking in averment of the amount in controversy. It charges that a large amount of goods were manufactured and sold under the alleged agreement, but fails to state the amount in controversy, or that it exceeds the sum of $2,000, the amount necessary to confer upon the court below jurisdiction of the subject-matter. It has been so long and so often ruled that without such averment a federal tribunal is without jurisdiction, and that such court whenever such lack of averment appears, should at any stage of the case and sua sponte dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction, that it is passing strange that at this late day we should be confronted with pleadings devoid of proper jurisdictional averment. The court below was, because of such lack of averment, without jurisdiction to entertain the bill. The demurrer, however, did not present the question, but objected, inter alia, that an adequate remedy at law was declared. The court below in terms sustained in demurrer, and decreed that the bill be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We think it manifest that the 'want of jurisdiction' stated in the decree means that the bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. United States
...of lack of proper parties, Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677, 9 Sup.Ct. 426, 32 L.Ed. 800; requisite amount involved, Cochran v. Childs, 111 F. 433, 49 C.C.A. 421; authorized place where trial was held, Armstrong Loveland, 99 A.D. 28, 90 N.Y.Supp. 711; or, where the life or liberty of citizen......
-
De Jianne v. United States
... ... account of lack of proper parties, Chapman v ... Barney, 129 U.S. 677, 9 Sup.Ct. 426, 32 L.Ed. 800; ... requisite amount involved, Cochran v. Childs, 111 F ... 433, 49 C.C.A. 421; authorized place where trial was held, ... Armstrong v. Loveland, 99 A.D. 28, 90 N.Y.Supp. 711; ... or ... ...
-
Dewey v. Bechthold
...in controversy," a dismissal of the action for want of jurisdiction is warranted. Kamensky, 2011 WL 1838782, at *3; Cochran v. Childs, 111 F. 433, 434 (7th Cir. 1901) (holding that without an "averment of the amount incontroversy. . .a federal tribunal is without jurisdiction," and courts s......