Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Company v. Benjamin Jones
Decision Date | 04 April 1904 |
Docket Number | No. 165,165 |
Citation | 193 U.S. 532,48 L.Ed. 778,24 S.Ct. 576 |
Parties | GREAT SOUTHERN FIRE PROOF HOTEL COMPANY, Petitioner , v. BENJAMIN F. JONES, George M. Laughlin, Benjamin F. Jones, Jr., et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Gilbert Holland Stewart, Henry Gumble, Stewart & Stewart, and Gumble & Gumble for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 532-537 intentionally omitted] Messrs. George K. Nash, T. J. Keating, Talfourd P. Linn, Louis G. Addison, John D. McKennan, and Outhwaite, Linn, & Thurman for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 537-539 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:
The Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Company, a corporation of Ohio, made a contract with one McClain for the construction of a hotel building and opera house at Columbus, Ohio.
McClain contracted with Jones & Laughlins, Limited, a partnership association organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, for a certain amount of steel to be used in the buildings which he undertook to erect.
Under that contract Jones & Laughlins, Limited, furnished steel of the value of $43,296.74.
Proceeding under certain statutes of Ohio relating to liens for mechanics and others, Jones & Laughlins, Limited, brought suit in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Ohio against the hotel company, to enforce a lien asserted by them on the hotel building and opera house for the balance due on their contract with McClain. Various persons were made defendants because they asserted claims upon or interest in the property. It was a case in which the jurisdiction of that court depended upon diversity in the citizenship of the parties. Upon final hearing the circuit court dismissed the bill on the ground that the statute of Ohio of April 13th, 1894 (91 Ohio Laws, 135), under which Jones & Laughlins, Limited, proceeded, was repugnant to the Constitution of Ohio. 79 Fed. 477. Upon appeal to the circuit court of appeals, that court, being of opinion that the statute was constitutional, reversed the decree of the circuit court. 30 C. C. A. 108, 58 U. S. App. 397, 86 Fed. 370. The case was then brought here upon writ of certiorari, and this court, without considering the merits, reversed the judgments of both courts upon the ground that the record did not affirmatively show a case of which the circuit court could properly take cognizance, so far as the citizenship of the parties was concerned. In the opinion then rendered we said that, under the circumstances, the plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their pleadings as to the citizenship of the parties; and, if a case could be presented within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, the parties should be allowed to proceed to a final hearing on the merits. Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U. S. 449, 44 L. ed. 842, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 690.
Upon the return of the cause the plaintiffs filed an amended bill of complaint, which cured the defect in its original bill as to the citizenship of the parties. The case went to a final hearing upon the merits, and a decree was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. That decree was affirmed in the circuit court of appeals. Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 54 C. C. A. 165, 116 Fed. 793. The case is again here upon a writ of certiorari granted upon motion of the hotel company.
The statutory provisions, questions as to the constitutionality of which have been raised in this case, are certain sections of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, as follows:
The contention of the hotel company is that the statute under which Jones & Laughlins, Limited, proceeded was repugnant to the Constitution of Ohio; and that the supreme court of Ohio having held in two cases—Palmer v. Tingle, and Young v. Lion Hardware Co. 55 Ohio St. 423, 45 N. E. 313, determined before the bringing of this suit, but after the rights of the parties had been fixed by their contracts—that the statute was inconsistent with the state Constitution, the duty of the Federal court was to follow those decisions, even if, in the exercise of an independent judgment on the subject, it was of opinion that the statute was constitutional. Is that view in harmony with the decisions of this court?
The leading case on this subject is Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 33, 27 L. ed. 359, 365, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 10, 21. In that case, which was in the circuit court of the United States, the rights of the parties depended upon a statute of Missouri which had not been construed by the highest court of the state at the time those rights accrued under it; and the question arose whether the circuit court was entitled to determine for itself what was the true meaning of the statute. In view of some differences in forms of expression in previous cases, the court deemed it wise to re-examine the subject upon both principle and authority, and to announce the rule by which a circuit court of the United States should be guided in case of a conflict of opinion between it and the highest court of the state as to the meaning and legal effect of a local statute upon which the rights of parties depended.
In that case Mr. Justice Bradley, delivering the unanimous judgment of this court, said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Parsons, 25685
... ... States Fidelity & Guaranty Company and others. From a decree ... overruling the ... intended until after the fire; hence both the complainant and ... the ... Dunbar v. Newman, 46 Miss. 231; Jones v. Miss. Farm ... Co., 116 Miss. 295 ... Surety Co. v. Stemmon, 239 S.W. 1039; Great ... Southern Hotel Co. v. Jones, 193 U.S. 532; ... ...
-
Becker v. Hopper
... ... Hotel contract, tinwork, etc." is uncertain, indefinite ... The ... insufficiency of the original proof of publication was ... sufficient ground for the ... Newbaur, (Ind.) 42 N.E. 40; ... Jones v. Hotel Co., 86 F. 371; Blauvelt v ... Appeals, Sixth Circuit, in Jones v. Great Southern ... Fireproof Hotel Co., 86 F. 370, 30 ... railroad company for services, or for damages for stock ... ...
-
Wright v. Hix
... ... sued on the said Empire Life Insurance Company was a ... nonresident corporation duly, legally, ... 150 [25 N.E. 680, 12 L.R.A ... 328]; Great Western Tel. Co. v. Loewenthal, 154 Ill ... subsequent legislation. Great Sou. Fire Proof Hotel Co ... v. Jones, 193 U.S. 532, ... ...
-
Messinger v. Anderson
... ... the United Realty Company and Rosewell E. Messinger, ... defendants; the ... In ... Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 116 F ... ...