Mason v. Hitchcock
Decision Date | 15 December 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 3477.,3477. |
Parties | MASON v. HITCHCOCK et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
William K. Mason, pro se.
Walter Powers, of Boston, Mass., for appellees.
Before WILSON and MAGRUDER, Circuit Judges, and PETERS, District Judge.
In this action of tort commenced in the federal District Court the plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the individual members of the Board of Bar Examiners of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the refusal of that Board to recommend him for admission to the Massachusetts Bar. The plaintiff took the written examination which is one of the prerequisites to the admission to that Bar and the Board of Examiners reported to the Supreme Judicial Court that he had failed to pass the examination and that his acquirements and qualifications did not appear to be sufficient to warrant his admission to practice.
The plaintiff in his declaration alleges that his answers to the questions in the examination were substantially correct and sufficient to entitle him to admission to practice; that the refusal to recommend him was a wilful abuse of power, a violation of his constitutional rights in depriving him of property without due process of law, and the result of a conspiracy to so deprive him.
The defendants demurred and answered in abatement. The District Court sustained both and entered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff comes before this court on his "substituted bill of exceptions", and his appeal.
The demurrer assigns as one general ground:
The district judge held:
"Since the declaration fails to state a cause of action cognizable in this court the demurrer is therefore sustained."
It is clear that neither the District Court nor this court has jurisdiction of the matters set forth in the complaint.
The plaintiff alleges in his declaration that his constitutional rights as an American citizen have been violated, and that his cause of action arises under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A. He cannot, however, come into the District Court under the direct authority of the Constitution. Every federal court, other than the Supreme Court, derives its jurisdiction wholly from the authority of Congress. Kline v. Burke Const. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 43 S.Ct. 79, 67 L.Ed. 226, 24 A.L.R. 1077.
The grant of jurisdiction under which the plaintiff claims his right to come into the District Court as a litigant is contained in the first sentence of 28 U.S. C. § 41(1), 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1):
There is here no diversity of citizenship. There is no charge that the defendants have violated any law of the United States. The plaintiff apparently claims that the matter in controversy, involving damages of more than $3,000, arises under the Constitution and the laws of the United States in that his "property" (not specified) has been taken without due process of law contrary to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the plaintiff is under a misapprehension as to the scope...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moffett v. Commerce Trust Co.
...90 S.W.2d 401; Duehay v. Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Co., 105 F.2d 768; Smith v. Fourth Natl. Bank of Tulsa, 141 F.2d 294; Mason v. Hitchcock, 1 Cir., 108 F.2d 134; Stevens v. Larwill, 110 Mo.App. 140, 84 S.W. (48) All of the separate demurrers which were sustained by Judge Ridge had been ......
-
Dorsey v. Stuyvesant Town Corp.
...denied 333 U.S. 875, 68 S.Ct. 905, 92 L.Ed. 1151;Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free Library, 4 Cir., 149 8f.2d 212. But compare Mason v. Hitchcock, 1 Cir., 108 F.2d 134. Speaking of the executive committee of the Democratic Party in the State of Texas, Mr. Justice Cardozo said: ‘They are not acting i......
-
United States v. Papworth, Cr. No. 9775.
...of the federal courts to every subject, in every form which the Constitution' (Article III) "might warrant.'" In Mason v. Hitchcock, 1 Cir., 1939, 108 F.2d 134, 135, the court said: "Every federal court, other than the Supreme Court, derives its jurisdiction wholly from the authority of Con......
-
National Surety Corporation v. Chamberlain
...and derived wholly from the authority of Congress. Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 43 S.Ct. 79, 67 L.Ed. 226; Mason v. Hitchcock, 1 Cir., 108 F.2d 134.2 It is a part of an independent system for administering justice and state law cannot alter its essential character or funct......