Hugh Stevenson v. William Fain, No. 8
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Fuller |
| Parties | HUGH STEVENSON, Matilda C. Alloway, Paul E. Stevenson, et all., Appts . v. WILLIAM FAIN, John Fain, Robert Fain, et al |
| Docket Number | No. 8 |
| Decision Date | 07 November 1904 |
v.
WILLIAM FAIN, John Fain, Robert Fain, et al.
Messrs.
This was a bill filed by Stevenson and others, citizens and residents of New York and Rhode Island, against Fain and others, citizens and residents of North Carolina and Georgia, in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Tennessee, to remove a cloud upon the title to a
Page 166
body of wild lands lying adjacent to the boundary between Tennessee and North Carolina.
Complainants claimed title under grants from the state of Tennessee, and alleged that the lands lay wholly in Monroe county, Tennessee. Defendants alleged that the lands lay wholly within the county of Cherokee, in the state of North Carolina, and that they were lawfully granted to their ancestor by that state.
The issue involved the true boundary line between North Carolina and Tennessee. The circuit court held that the lands lay in the state of North Carolina, and that the title was in defendants, and dismissed the bill.
Thereupon an appeal was taken to the circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit, and, on hearing, the decree of the circuit court was affirmed. 53 C. C. A. 467, 116 Fed. 147.
From the decree of the circuit court of appeals this appeal was prosecuted.
T. S. Webb, Hu. L. McClung, Charles Seymour, and L. M. G. Baker for appellants.
Messrs. John W. Green and Samuel G. Shields for appellees.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:
If the jurisdiction of the circuit court was dependent entirely on diversity of citizenship, the decree of the circuit court of appeals was final, and this appeal cannot be maintained. The contention of appellants is that it was not so dependent because jurisdiction also existed in that the parties claimed under grants from different states, to which it is replied that, under the Constitution and laws, the circuit courts are not vested with jurisdiction on that ground except when the parties are citizens of the same state.
By § 1 of article 3 of the Constitution it is provided
Page 167
that "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish." And by § 2 that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects. 2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make."
The Supreme Court alone "possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the Constitution, and of which the legislative power cannot deprive it" (United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 32, 3 L. ed. 259), but the jurisdiction of the circuit courts depends upon some act of Congress (Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8, 10, 1 L. ed. 718, 719; M'I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Devine v. Joshua Hendy Corporation, No. 6176.
...718; United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32, 3 L.Ed. 259; Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 448, 12 L.Ed. 1147; Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U.S. 165 25 S.Ct. 6, 49 L.Ed. 142. The Constitution simply gives to the inferior courts the capacity to take jurisdiction in the enumerated cases, but it......
-
Fisch v. General Motors Corporation, No. 10692
...United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32, 33, 3 L.Ed. 259; Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252, 18 L.Ed. 851; Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U.S. 165, 167, 25 S.Ct. 6, 7, 49 L.Ed. 142; Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U.S. 1, 24, 26 S.Ct. 387, 393, 50 L.Ed. 633, 5 Ann.Cas. 692; Chicot County Drainage ......
-
Crowell v. Benson Crowell v. Same, Nos. 19
...S. ex rel. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 280, 19 L. Ed. 658; Home Life Insurance Co. v. Dunn, 19 Wall. 214, 226, 22 L. Ed. 68; Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U. S. 165, 167, 25 S. Ct. 6, 49 L. Ed. 142; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226, 234, 43 S. Ct. 79, 67 L. Ed. 226, 24 A. L. R. 1077. It was......
-
ATHENS LUMBER CO. INC. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, Civ. A. No. 81-79-ATH.
...courts which the Congress is authorized to establish. Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8, 10, 1 L.Ed. 718, 719; Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U.S. 165, 167, 49 L.Ed. 142, 143, 25 S.Ct. 1 6, 7; Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 234, 67 L.Ed. 226, 232, 43 S.Ct. 79 82, 24 A.L.R. 1077.......
-
Devine v. Joshua Hendy Corporation, No. 6176.
...718; United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32, 3 L.Ed. 259; Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 448, 12 L.Ed. 1147; Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U.S. 165 25 S.Ct. 6, 49 L.Ed. 142. The Constitution simply gives to the inferior courts the capacity to take jurisdiction in the enumerated cases, but it......
-
Fisch v. General Motors Corporation, No. 10692
...United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32, 33, 3 L.Ed. 259; Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252, 18 L.Ed. 851; Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U.S. 165, 167, 25 S.Ct. 6, 7, 49 L.Ed. 142; Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U.S. 1, 24, 26 S.Ct. 387, 393, 50 L.Ed. 633, 5 Ann.Cas. 692; Chicot County Drainage ......
-
Crowell v. Benson Crowell v. Same, Nos. 19
...S. ex rel. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 280, 19 L. Ed. 658; Home Life Insurance Co. v. Dunn, 19 Wall. 214, 226, 22 L. Ed. 68; Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U. S. 165, 167, 25 S. Ct. 6, 49 L. Ed. 142; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226, 234, 43 S. Ct. 79, 67 L. Ed. 226, 24 A. L. R. 1077. It was......
-
ATHENS LUMBER CO. INC. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, Civ. A. No. 81-79-ATH.
...courts which the Congress is authorized to establish. Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8, 10, 1 L.Ed. 718, 719; Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U.S. 165, 167, 49 L.Ed. 142, 143, 25 S.Ct. 1 6, 7; Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 234, 67 L.Ed. 226, 232, 43 S.Ct. 79 82, 24 A.L.R. 1077.......