Joy v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 25 March 1903
• Citation: 122 F. 524
• Parties: JOY v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

122 F. 524

JOY v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

March 25, 1903

E. P Johnson and G. A. Finkelnburg, for plaintiff.

Chas Claflin Allen, Chas. W. Bates, and Wm. F. Woerner, for City of St. Louis.

TRIEBER District Judge.

This is an action of ejectment for the recovery of certain lands in the city of St. Louis, claimed by plaintiff by mesne conveyances from one La Beaume, who it was claimed was the owner in fee simple of the premises by virtue of a Spanish concession, dated February 15, 1799, and certain confirmations thereof by various acts of Congress hereinafter referred to. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked solely upon the ground that the cause of action is one arising under the laws of the United States, there being no diversity of citizenship alleged in the petition.

It is the settled law that the act of March 3, 1887, as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 507), was intended by Congress to contract the jurisdiction of the national courts, and that all doubts must be resolved against jurisdiction. It is equally well settled that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by allegations that the defendant intends to assert a defense based on the national Constitution or laws of the United States, or by any other allegation, anticipating the defense. Tennessee v Bank, 152 U.S. 554, 14 Sup.Ct. 654, 38 L.Ed.511; Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 U.S. 102, 15 Sup.Ct. 34, 39 L.Ed. 85; Walker v. Collins, 167 U.S. 57, 17 Sup.Ct. 738, 42 L.Ed. 76; Sawyer v. Kochersperger, 170 U.S. 303, 18 Sup.Ct. 946, 42 L.Ed. 1046; Railway Company v. Bell, 176 U.S. 321, 20 Sup.Ct. 399, 44 L.Ed. 486; Arkansas v. Coal Company, 183 U.S. 185, 22 Sup.Ct. 47, 46 L.Ed. 144; Fergus Falls v. Water Company, 19 C.C.A. 212, 72 F. 873; Montana Company v. Boston, etc., Mining Company, 35 C.C.A. 1, 93 F. 274; Filhiol v. Torney (C.C.) 119 F. 974.

The allegation in the petition 'that said claim of plaintiff as to the proper construction and legal effect of said confirmation acts of Congress approved June 13, 1812 (2 Stat. 748, c. 99), and June 6, 1874 (18 Stat. 62, c. 223 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1512)), respectively, is disputed by defendants and contested by them in regard to the title to the land hereinafter described, ' must therefore be disregarded for the purpose of determining the question of jurisdiction, and the issue determined by the allegations in the petition, stating that plaintiff's claim or right is one arising under the laws of the United States. Does every claim in which an act of Congress is claimed as a basis of the right confer jurisdiction on the national courts?

In Romie v. Casanova, 91 U.S. 379, 23 L.Ed. 374, the question was which of the parties had actually obtained the grant of the premises in controversy, both of them claiming title from the city of San Jose, and it was held: 'Even if it depended upon the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo and the several acts of Congress to ascertain and settle private land claims in California, there would be no jurisdiction. Both parties admitted that title, and their litigation extends only to the determination of the rights which they have severally acquired under it. ' So, in the case at bar, leaving out the allegations in the petition anticipating the defense, there is nothing to show that the validity or construction of any act of Congress is involved in this case. No one questions the validity of these acts of Congress under which plaintiff claims, and no one disputes that La Beaume, under whom plaintiff now claims title,

=#hc526 is, under his concession and the act of confirmation of Congress of June 13, 1812, entitled to all lots or outlots in his possession prior to the 20th day of December, 1803, or that under the act of 1874 they would be the legal owners of all lands of which theretofore they had been, either by Spanish grants or concessions, or by the acts of Congress confirming these claims, the equitable owners.

In Gold Washing Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U.S. 199, 24 L.Ed. 656, an action instituted in the state court was sought to be removed to a national court upon the allegation 'that they claimed the right to thus use (the channels of the river and its tributaries) under the provisions of certain specified acts of Congress; that the action arose under and that its determination will necessarily involve and require the construction of the laws of the United States specifically enumerated, as well as the pre-emption laws. ' The court denied jurisdiction; Chief Justice Waite, who, saying:

'Before, therefore, a Circuit Court can be required to retain a cause under this jurisdiction, it must in some form appear upon the record, by a statement of facts in legal and logical form, such as is required in good pleading, that the suit is one which really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy as to the right which depends upon the construction or effect of the Constitution or some law or treaty of the United States.'

So far as La Beaume or those claiming under him are affected by the acts of Congress relied upon by plaintiff in his petition (the acts of June 13, 1812, 2 Stat. 748, and of June 6, 1874, 18 Stat. 62 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1512)), nothing was granted to him which he did not possess before the passage of these acts. His rights which he acquired by grant or concession from the Spanish government, while Louisiana territory belonged to Spain, were protected by the treaty of Paris, usually spoken of as the Louisiana Purchase Treaty, and Congress merely confirmed these rights.

Section 1 of the act of June 13, 1812, confirms 'the rights, titles and claims to town or village lots, out-lots,' etc., 'which lots have been inhabited, cultivated or possessed prior to the 20th day of December, 1803, to the inhabitants of the respective town or village,' etc., 'who were in possession of the land claimed'; but what the metes and bounds are of the land claimed to have been in possession of La Beaume are questions of fact, to be determined as any other facts, without requiring any construction of the act of Congress.

The act of June 6, 1874, 18 Stat. 62 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1512), 'relinquishes all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to all lands in the state of Missouri which have at any time heretofore been confirmed to any person or persons * * * in fee simple to the respective owners of the equitable titles thereto. ' Who these equitable owners are, and what premises have theretofore been confirmed to any person, are also questions of fact, for the determination of which no act of Congress requires construction.

In Sweringen v. St. Louis, 185 U.S. 38, 22 Sup.Ct. 569, 46 L.Ed. 795, a part of this identical grant was in controversy in an action determined by the state courts of the state of Missouri. It was sought to have the decision of the Supreme Court of that state reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of error,...