Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co.
Citation | 43 F. 545 |
Parties | LEHIGH ZINC & IRON CO. v. NEW JERSEY ZINC & IRON CO. |
Decision Date | 23 September 1890 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Charles D. Thompson, Richard Wayne Parker, and George Northrop, for complainant.
John R Emery and Thomas N. McCarter, for defendant.
This matter comes before the court upon demurrer interposed by the defendant to the bill of complaint filed by the complainant. The demurrer is general, and the following causes were assigned as its justification:
When the matter was heard, the arguments of counsel took a very wide range, but I shall not attempt to judge of the merits of the case at this time. The only question now before the court is one of pleading, and to that I shall confine myself. I do this with the lesser hesitation, because very many of the statements and allegations made by counsel, and upon which very acute and learned arguments were founded, do not appear upon the record, in the condition it now is, and were in fact contradicted and denied, or affirmed and insisted upon, with equal tenacity by the respective counsel. The question then to be considered is, has the demurrer been well taken? The bill of complaint in its general aspect and tenor may be called a 'bill of peace.' The complainant avers that it is the rightful owner of certain ores, in a certain locality; that it is in full, peaceable, and quiet possession thereof; that its right and title to these ores have been derived from certain deeds of conveyance, leases, and agreements, and have been confirmed to it by formal adjudications of courts in actions in which they were the subject-matter of the litigation; that the defendant is threatening to disturb the complainant in the possession of this property by commencing suits in which the title of the complainants is to be attacked; that as the title of the complainant has been fully established and settled, especially by the judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction, any further litigation of the same title would be vexatious and oppressive, and should be restrained.
The first objection to this bill made by the defendant is that the matter in controversy does not exceed in value the sum of $2,000. It is well settled that the requisite value of the matters in controversy is a jurisdictional fact, and it must be properly averred in the bill, or the court will refuse to assume jurisdiction of the cause. There is in the complainant's bill in averment, in the language of the statute defining the jurisdictional limits of this court, that the matters in dispute exceed the sum of $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs; but counsel for defendant insists that, notwithstanding such averment, the objection taken is fatal, because, if the case made by the complainant's bill is true, no pecuniary damage can accrue to it, for the suit threatened by the defendant would fall as utterly groundless. Without stopping now to invoke, in answer to this objection, the effect of a demurrer to the well-pleaded averment of a jurisdictional fact, it is sufficient to say that I...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peterson v. Sucro
...C.C., 127 F. 622; Cowell v. City Water-Supply Co., 8 Cir., 121 F. 53; Greene v. City of Tocoma, C.C., 53 F. 562; Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. New Jersey Zinc Co., C.C., 43 F. 545. And this rule clearly applies to a case such as this, where defendants are in privity claiming under a common sour......
-
Cowell v. City Water Supply Co.
... ... Hoskins ... (C.C.) 38 F. 772; Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. New ... Jersey Zinc & Iron ... ...
-
Withers v. John Hopkins Place Sav. Bank
...the question of jurisdiction, so far as it depends on the amount involved. Berthold v. Hoskins, 38 F. 772; Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co., 43 F. 545; Simon v. House, 46 F. 317, and authorities cited the last case. In the present action, the plaintiff, after alleging, a......
-
Colony Coal & Coke Corporation v. Napier
...was shown that the cloud to be removed affected the title as a whole. Woodside v. Ciceroni, 9 Cir., 93 F. 1; Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co., C.C., 43 F. 545; Frontera Transportation Co. v. Abaunza, 5 Cir., 271 F. 199; Greenfield v. United States Mortgage Co. of Scotlan......