Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Erasmus Mottley

Citation211 U.S. 149,29 S.Ct. 42,53 L.Ed. 126
Decision Date16 November 1908
Docket NumberNo. 37,37
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

The appellees (husband and wife), being residents and citizens of Kentucky, brought this suit in equity in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Kentucky against the appellant, a railroad company and a citizen of the same state. The object of the suit was to compel the specific performance of the following contract:

Louisville, Ky., Oct. 2d, 1871.

The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, in consideration that E. L. Mottley and wife, Annie E. Mottley, have this day released company from all damages or claims for damages for injuries received by them on the 7th of September, 1871, in consequence of a collision of trains on the railroad of said company at Randolph's Station, Jefferson County, Kentucky, hereby agrees to issue free passes on said railroad and branches now existing or to exist, to said E. L. & Annie E. Mottley for the remainder of the present year, and thereafter to renew said passes annually during the lives of said Mottley and wife or either of them.

The bill alleged that in September, 1871, plaintiffs, while passengers upon the defendant railroad, were injured by the defendant's negligence, and released their respective claims for damages in consideration of the agreement for transportation during their lives, expressed in the contract. It is alleged that the contract was performed by the defendant up to January 1, 1907, when the defendant declined to renew the passes. The bill then alleges that the refusal to comply with the con- tract was based solely upon that part of the act of Congress of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 892), which forbids the giving of free passes or free transportation. The bill further alleges: First, that the act of Congress referred to does not prohibit the giving of passes under the circumstances of this case; and, second, that, if the law is to be construed as prohibiting such passes, it is in conflict with the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, because it deprives the plaintiffs of their property without due process of law. The defendant demurred to the bill. The judge of the circuit court overruled the demurrer, entered a decree for the relief prayed for, and the defendant appealed directly to this court.

Mr. Henry L. Stone for appellant.

Messrs. Lewis McQuown and Clarence U. McElroy for appellees.

Mr. L. A. Shaver for Interstate Commerce Commission as amicus curiae.

Mr. Justice Moody, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

Two questions of law were raised by the demurrer to the bill, were brought here by appeal, and have been argued before us. They are, first, whether that part of the act of Congress of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 892), which forbids the giving of free passes or the collection of any different compensation for transportation of passengers than that specified in the tariff filed, makes it unlawful to perform a contract for transportation of persons who, in good faith, before the passage of the act, had accepted such contract in satisfaction of a valid cause of action against the railroad; and, second, whether the statute, if it should be construed to render such a contract unlawful, is in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. We do not deem it necessary, however, to consider either of these questions, because, in our opinion, the court below was without jurisdiction of the cause. Neither party has questioned that jurisdiction, but it is the duty of this court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded. This duty we have frequently performed of our own motion. Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382, 28 L. ed. 462, 463, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510; King Iron Bridge & Mfg. Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225, 30 L. ed. 623, Sup. Ct. Rep. 552; Blacklock v. Small, 127 U. S. 96, 105, 32 L. ed. 70, 73, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1096; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322, 326, 32 L. ed. 132, 134, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1154; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586, 587, 32 L. ed. 543, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 173; Continental Nat. Bank v. Buford, 191 U. S. 120, 48 L. ed. 119, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 54.

There was no diversity of citizenship, and it is not and cannot be suggested that there was any ground of jurisdiction, except that the case was § 'suit . . . arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.' 25 Stat. at L. 434, chap. 866, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 509. It is the settled interpretation of these words, as used in this statute, conferring jurisdiction, that a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution. It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States. Although such allegations show that very likely, in the course of the litigation, a question under the Constitution would arise, they do not show that the suit, that is, the plaintiff's original cause of action, arises under the Constitution. In Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454, 38 L. ed. 511, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 654, the plaintiff, the state of Tennessee, brought suit in the circuit court of the United States to recover from the defendant certain taxes alleged to be due under the laws of the state. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant claimed an immunity from the taxation by virtue of its charter, and that therefore the tax was void, because in violation of the provision of the Constitution of the United States, which forbids any state from passing a law impairing the obligation of contracts. The cause was held to be beyond the jurisdiction of the circuit court, the court saying, by Mr. Justice Gray (p. 464): 'A suggestion of one party, that the other will or may set up a claim under the Constitution or laws of the United States, does not make the suit one arising under that Constitution or those laws.'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2172 cases
  • Klim v. Jones
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • July 17, 1970
    ...1194 (1950); Gully v. First Nat. Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112-116, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936); Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149, 152, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908); State of Tennessee v. Union and Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454, 459-460, 14 S.Ct. 654, 38 L.Ed. 511 (189......
  • Tyree v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • July 30, 1997
    ...the complaint. Gully v. First Nat'l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 113, 57 S.Ct. 96, 97-98, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936); Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908). As a general rule, therefore, the assertion of a federal defense, including preemption, does not provi......
  • Aetna Us Healthcare v. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • June 9, 1999
    ...Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987); see also Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S.Ct. 42, 43, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908). A defense is not part of a plaintiff's properly pleaded statement of his or her claim. See Metropolit......
  • Vlaming v. W. Point Sch. Bd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • August 19, 2020
    ..." Vaden v. Discover Bank , 556 U.S. 49, 60, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 173 L.Ed.2d 206 (2009) (quoting Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley , 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) ). A court cannot base its jurisdiction on a defense or counterclaim. Id."The ‘mere presence of a federa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 books & journal articles
  • Jurisdiction's noble lie.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 61 No. 5, March 2009
    • March 1, 2009
    ...Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180 (1921) (sidestepping the "well-pleaded complaint" rule from Louisville & Nashville R.R.v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908)). Others witness courts disregarding their own stern rhetoric. See, e.g., Colo. River, 424 U.S. at 817; see also Caterpillar Inc. v.......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...( 1969), 767-68 Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 85 S.Ct. 817, 13 L.Ed.2d 709 (1965), 1079 Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908), 578 Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938), 1348 Lovell v. Poway Unified Sch.......
  • Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Antitrust and Business Tort Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort litigation
    • January 1, 2014
    ...Eisler v. Stritzler, 535 F.2d 148, 151 (1st Cir. 1976). 203. Henderson, 131 S. Ct. at 1202; Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908); Bracken v. Matgouranis, 296 F.3d 160, 162 (3d Cir. 2002) (recognizing court’s duty to examine basis of jurisdiction). 204. Hender......
  • The Supreme assimilation of patent law.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 114 No. 8, June 2016
    • June 1, 2016
    ...of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents...."); Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). (157.) Holmes Group, 535 U.S. at 830 (quoting Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 809 (1988)). (158.) See id. at ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT