Madisonville Traction Company v. Saint Bernard Mining Company

Decision Date16 January 1905
Docket NumberNo. 362,362
Citation25 S.Ct. 251,196 U.S. 239,49 L.Ed. 462
PartiesMADISONVILLE TRACTION COMPANY, Appt. , v. SAINT BERNARD MINING COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Syllabus from pages 239-241 intentionally omitted] Messrs.David W. Fairleigh and N. T. Crutchfield for appellant.

Messrs. E. G. Sebree, C. J. Waddill, and Gordon & Gordon & Cox for appellee.

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

The Madisonville Traction Company, a Kentucky corporation, having by its charter authority to construct an electric railroad, filed its application in the county court of Hopkins county, in that commonwealth, to condemn for its use certain lands belonging to the Saint Bernard Mining Company, a Delaware corporation engaged in mining coal,—the traction company being styled in the application as plaintiff, and the mining company as defendant.

The application was made under the Kentucky statutes relating to the condemnation of lands. The nature of those proceedings, whether judicial or not, appears from certain provisions of those statutes, which may be summarized as follows:

Any company authorized to construct a railroad, if 'unable to contract with the owner of any land or material necessary for its use for the purpose thereof,' may file in the office of the clerk of the county court a description of such land or material, and have commissioners appointed to assess the damages which the owner is entitled to receive. Ky. Stat. § 835.

The commissioners are required to make their award of damages in writing, giving the names of the owners, and whether nonresidents of the state, infants, of unsound mind, or married women. Ky. Stat. § 836.

It is made the duty of the clerk of the court, upon application of the company, to issue process against the owners, to show cause why the report should not be confirmed, and make such orders as to nonresidents and persons under disability as are required by the Civil Code of Practice in actions against them in the circuit court. Ky. Stat. § 837.

At the first regular term, 'after the owners shall have been summoned the length of time prescribed by the Civil Code of Practice before an answer is required,' the court must examine the report, and pass upon it. Ky. Stat. § 838.

If exceptions are filed by either party, a jury must be empaneled to try the issues of fact, and judgment rendered in conformity to the verdict, if sufficient cause to the contrary be not shown. Either party may appeal to the circuit court, the appeal to be tried de novo.

Upon the confirmation of the report of the commissioners or the assessment of damages by the court, as provided, and the payment to the owners of the amount due, as shown by the report of the commissioners when confirmed, or as shown by the judgment of the court when the damages are assessed by it, and all costs adjudged to the owner, the railroad company becomes entitled to take possession of the land and material, and to use the same for the purpose for which it was condemned as fully as if the title had been conveyed to it. But when an appeal is taken from the judgment of the county court by the company, it is not entitled to take possession of the land or material condemned until it pays into court the damages assessed and all costs. Ky. Stat. § 839.

The commissioners appointed by the county court, in the above proceeding, awarded $100 as damages to be paid to the mining company.

Process having issued, the mining company, before any action was taken upon the report, filed its petition and bond for the removal of the case into the circuit court of the United States, alleging, among other things, that the value of the matter in dispute, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeded $2,000. The petition for removal distinctly alleged, as the ground of removal, that the two companies were corporations of different states.

The sufficiency of the bond was not disputed. But the county court refused to recognize any right of removal, and the Kentucky corporation was about to proceed in the prosecution of its case in that court, despite the application for removal. Thereupon the Delaware corporation filed in the circuit court of the United States a complete transcript of the proceedings in the state court.

Subsequently the present original suit in equity was instituted in the Federal court by the mining company against the traction company. The bill, repeating the allegations in the petition for removal as to the diverse citizenship of the two corporations, showed that, notwithstanding what had been done to have the cause removed, from the state court, the traction company was about to proceed to have the lands condemned in the case instituted in the county court. Among other things the bill alleged that plaintiff denied the right of the traction company to have the lands in question condemned, and averred that the report of the commissioners was insufficient in law; that the commissioners acted improperly, unfairly, and unfaithfully in their viewing of the land, in the preparation of their report, and in awarding damages; that $100 was wholly inadequate as compensation, and was assessed and given under the influence of passion and prejudice, or some other illegal motive; that the land sought to be taken was worth, intrinsically, a great deal more than that amount; that the incidental damages done to the property of plaintiff in the construction of the road (which damages, under the laws of Kentucky, the said commissioners should have taken into consideration, and assessed, but did not, § 836) exceeded $2,000; that the plaintiff's property and business will not be benefited in the least degree by the construction or prudent operation of the railroad; and that 'it is proposed to deprive it of over 9 acres of its land, which, through its location, is valued at and is worth over $2,500, and is so situated that such deprivation will irreparably injure and damage its remaining land.'

The relief asked in the present suit was that the traction company be restrained and enjoined from further prosecuting the case in the county court, or taking any further steps therein.

The traction company demurred to the bill, one of the grounds of demurrer being that the circuit court was without jurisdiction or authority, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, to grant the injunction asked for, or any other relief. The circuit court sustained its jurisdiction and overruled the demurrer. The traction company stood by its demurrer, and a final decree was entered, enjoining that company from any further prosecution of the case in the county court.

It has been observed that the parties to the proceeding in the county court are corporations, and therefore each is to be deemed, for the purpose of suing and being sued in the Federal court, a citizen of the state by whose laws it was created. The questions presented by the record are these: Was the proceeding in the state court a suit or controversy to which the judicial power of the United States extends? If a suit or controversy, was it removable to the circuit court of the United States? If removable, was it, in law, removed, and was it competent for that court, after the removal of the case, to enjoin the traction company from further proceeding in the state court?

We recognize the importance of these questions, and have given them the fullest consideration.

Certain principles, relating to the removal of cases, have been settled by former adjudications. They are:

1. If a case be a removable one, that is, if the suit, in its nature, be one of which the circuit court could rightfully take jurisdiction, then, upon the filing of a petition for removal, in due time, with a sufficient bond, the case is, in law, removed, and the state court in which it is pending will lose jurisdiction to proceed further, and all subsequent proceedings in that court will be void. New Orleans, M & F. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135, 141, 26 L. ed. 96, 98; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5, 14, 26 L. ed. 643, 645; National S. S. Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 122, 27 L. ed. 87, 89, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 58; St. Paul & C. R. Co. v. McLean, 108 U. S. 212, 216, 27 L. ed. 703, 704, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; Crehore v. Ohio & M. R. Co. 131 U. S. 240, 243, 33 L. ed. 144, 145, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 692; Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 485, 493, 26 L. ed. 354, 357; Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U. S. 589, 595, 35 L. ed. 870, 872, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 62.

2. After the presentation of a sufficient petition and bond to the state court in a removable case, it is competent for the circuit court, by a proceeding ancillary in its nature—without violating § 720 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 581) forbidding a court of the United States from enjoining proceedings in a state court—to restrain the party against whom a cause has been legally removed from taking further steps in the state court. French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 252, 22 L. ed. 857; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 494, 496, 497, 26 L. ed. 497, 498; Moran v. Sturgess, 154 U. S. 256, 270, 38 L. ed. 981, 985, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1019. See, also, Sargent v. Helton, 115 U. S. 352, 29 L. ed. 413, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 78; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 165, 43 L. ed. 405, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 119; Gates v. Bucki, 4 C. C. A. 116, 12 U. S. App. 69, 53 Fed. 969; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Kuteman, 4 C. C. A. 503, 13 U. S. App. 99, 54 Fed. 551; Re Whitelaw, 71 Fed. 733, 738; Iron Mountain R. Co. v. Memphis, 37 C. C. A. 410, 96 Fed. 131; James v. Central Trust Co. 39 C. C. A. 126, 98 Fed. 489.

3. It is well settled that if, upon the face of the record, including the petition for removal, a suit does not appear to be a removable one, then the state court is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction, and may proceed as if no application for removal had been made. Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430, 432, 29 L. ed. 962, 963, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 799; Carson v. Hyatt, 118 U. S. 279, 281, 30...

To continue reading

Request your trial
272 cases
  • McGrew v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1910
    ... ... St. 1906, p. 971]) prohibits a railroad company in the state from charging for transportation of ... Madisonville ... 132 S.W. 1087 ... Traction Co. v. Mining ... ...
  • George Weston, Ltd. v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1935
    ...1159; Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Daughtry, 138 U. S. 298, 11 S. Ct. 306, 34 L. Ed. 963; Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Min. Co, 196 U. S. 239, 25 S. Ct. 251, 49 L. Ed. 462. The right of removal depends upon the case disclosed by the pleadings as they stand when the petitio......
  • Albritton v. City of Winona
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1938
    ... ... 512, 66 L.Ed. 740; Coosaw Mining Co ... v. South Carolina, 144 U.S. 563, 36 ... In that case the Tupelo Garment Company agreed with the Town ... of Booneville that if a ... and Justices Brewer and Peekham, in Madisonville Traction ... Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 ... ...
  • Streckfus Steamers, Inc. v. Kiersky
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 4, 1935
    ...292 F. 408; Brady v. J. B. McCrary Co., 244 F. 602; Kingston v. American Car & Foundry Co., 285 U.S. 560; 271 U.S. 99; 102 U.S. 135; 196 U.S. 239; 106 U.S. 118; 140 U.S. 213 U.S. 207; Sec. 29, U.S. Judicial Code; 4 Hughes Fed. Practice, page 7, sec. 2271, page 20, sec. 2274, and page 61, se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Constitutional Review of State Eminent Domain Legislation: Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 9-01, September 1985
    • Invalid date
    ...level of judicial inquiry varies with the facts and circumstances of each case); Madis-onville Traction Co. v. Saint Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 251-52 (1905) (the state does not have final say in determining what is a public use); Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, ......
  • FEDERAL COURTS AND TAKINGS LITIGATION.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 No. 2, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...Euclid, 272 U.S. at 384 (apparently federal question injunction action). (69) See Madisonville Traction Co. v. Saint Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 247 (1905) (rejecting arguments against federal courts' entertaining such cases in allowing removal based on diversity); id. at 253-54 (disc......
1 provisions
  • 28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 71.1 Condemning Real Or Personal Property
    • United States
    • US Code 2023 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Title IX. Special Proceedings
    • January 1, 2023
    ...for it, is * * * a suit at common law, when initiated in a court." See also Madisonville Traction Co. v. Saint Bernard Mining Co., 1905, 25 S.Ct. 251, 196 U.S. 239, 23 L.Ed. 449, infra, under subdivision (k). And the Conformity Act, [former] 40 U.S.C. § 258, which is superseded by Rule 71A,......

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