Fields v. Community Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
| Decision Date | 15 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 766.,766. |
| Citation | 37 F. Supp. 367 |
| Parties | FIELDS v. COMMUNITY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Henderson, Deacy, Henderson & Swofford, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Charles M. Miller, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendants.
It was admitted on the argument that both of the defendants (and both joined in the petition to remove) were incorporated under an Act of Congress and are federal corporations.
Until February 13, 1925, it was the law that a suit against a federal corporation, if the jurisdictional amount was involved, was a removable suit for that it was a suit arising under the laws of the United States. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 6 L.Ed. 204; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Myers (Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Kirk), 115 U.S. 1, 2, 5 S.Ct. 1113, 29 L. Ed. 319. On February 13, 1925, what is now Section 42, Title 28 U.S.C.A. was enacted providing that
The effect of the act of February 13, 1925, was not to legislate that a proceeding against a federal corporation does not arise under the laws of the United States. (Congress could not exercise judicial power and such a declaration would be an exercise of judicial power), but was only to remove from the jurisdiction of federal courts such cases arising under the laws of the United States as suits against federal corporations in which the government was not the owner of more than one-half of the capital stock. As to corporations in which the government was the owner of more than one-half of the capital stock, the jurisdiction of the federal courts was left as it always had been.
One of the defendants here is a corporation all of whose capital stock is owned by the government. A suit against that corporation, for whatever reason it is sued, is a suit arising under the laws of the United States under the decisions of the Supreme Court. The essence of those decisions is that such a suit arises under the laws of the United States, not because of the character of the suit nor the relief demanded in it, but merely because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stark–romero v. the Nat'l R.R. Passenger Co. (amtrak)
...See Central Nat'l Bank v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 134 F.Supp. 873, 875 (D.Ill.1955); citing Fields v. Community Federal Savings & Loan Asso., 37 F.Supp. 367 (D.Mo.1941). Defendants Amtrak and BNSF have stated that they meet this threshold test, since more than 50% of their stock is ow......
-
Conjugal Soc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
...Act of Congress, unless the United States is the owner of more than one-half of its capital stock." Fields v. Community Federal Savings & Loan Association, 37 F.Supp. 367 (D.C.Miss., 1941), was apparently the first case to interpret the predecessor of Section 1349 (Title 28, U.S.C. 1940 Ed.......
-
CENTRAL NAT. BANK IN CHICAGO v. RECONSTRUCTION F. CORP.
...speaking, the foregoing section is a limitation upon jurisdiction rather than a grant of jurisdiction, Fields v. Community Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, D.C.Mo.1941, 37 F.Supp. 367, the failure to cite the correct section of the Federal Judicial Code is immaterial where, as here, it is clea......
-
FIRST FED. S. & L. ASS'N OF BOWLING GREEN, KY. v. McReynolds
...on appeal, and thus the court did not determine the question of federal jurisdiction. Indeed, the district court's opinion, reported in 37 F.Supp. 367, reveals that jurisdiction was based on the fact that the federal government owned more than one-half of the capital stock of one of the Thi......