Metcalf v. City of Watertown
| Citation | 32 L.Ed. 543,9 S.Ct. 173,128 U.S. 586 |
| Parties | METCALF v. CITY OF WATERTOWN |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1888 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
C. E. Monroe, for plaintiff in error.
Danl. Hall and Geo. W. Bud, for defendant in error.
This action was brought in the court below, in the year 1883, to recover the sum of $10,207.86, the amount of a judgment rendered May 8, 1866, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin, in favor of Pitkin C. Wright against the city of Watertown, a municipal corporation of that state. The plaintiff in the present action, E. W Metcalf, is a citizen of Ohio, and sues as assignee of certain named persons who became, under assignments from Wright in 1873, the owners, in different proportions, of that judgment. Although the question of the jurisdiction of the circuit court over the present suit was suggested at the bar, the case was argued entirely with reference to the construction and effect of the statute of Wisconsin, prescribing, in respect to causes of action accruing before November 1, 1878, 10 years as the period within which must be commenced 'an action upon a judgment or decree of any court of record of any state or territory within the United States, or of any court of the United States,' while 20 years was fixed, by the same statute, for the commencement of 'an action upon a judgment or decree of any court of record of this [that] state.' The court below held the suit to be barred by the limitation of 10 years. Rev. St. Wis. 1858, c. 138, §§ 1, 14, 15, 16; Id. 1878. We are not, however, at liberty to express any opinion upon the question of limitation, if the court, whose judgment has been brought here for review, does not appear, from the record, to have had jurisdiction of the case; and whether that court had or had not jurisdiction is a question which we must examine and determine, even if the parties forbear to make it, or consent that the case be considered upon its merits. Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510, Bridge Co. v. Otoe Co., 120 U. S. 225, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 552; Blacklock v. Small, 127 U. S. 96, 105, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1096; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322, 326, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1154
By the act of March 3, 1875, (18 St. 470, c. 137,) determining the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States, it is provided that no circuit or district court of the United States shall 'have cognizance of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon if no assignment had been made, except in cases of promissory notes negotiable by the lawmerchant and bills of exchange.' This suit certainly does not belong to the excepted class, and, being founded on the original judgment against the city, is one 'founded on contract,' within the meaning of the act. By the very terms, therefore, of the statute, Metcalf's right to sue in the circuit court depends upon the right of his assignors to have brought suit in that court, if no assignment had been made. This view is fatal to the jurisdiction of that court, so far as its jurisdiction depends upon the above provision of the statute, because it now here appears in the record of what state the plaintiff's assignors were citizens when this action was commenced. Indeed, it is consistent with the record that they were, at that time, citizens of the same state with the defendant. Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245, 248; Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237, 239, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 193; Peper v. Fordyce, 119 U. S. 469, 471, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287; Everhart v. College, 120 U. S. 223, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 555; Menard v Goggan, 121 U. S. 253, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 873, and the cases before cited.
Nor can the jurisdiction of the circuit court be maintained upon the theory that this suit is one arising under the constitution or laws of the United States. The fact that it was brought to recover the amount of a judgment of a court of the United States does not, of itself, make it a suit of that character; for the plaintiff, without raising by his complaint any distinct question of a federal nature, and without indicating, by proper averment, how the determination of any question of that character is involved in the case, seeks to enforce an ordinary right of property, by suing upon the judgment merely as a security of record, showing a debt due from the city of Watertown. Society v. Ford, 114 U. S. 635, 641, 5 Sup....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klim v. Jones
...State of Tennessee v. Union and Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454, 459-460, 14 S.Ct. 654, 38 L.Ed. 511 (1894); Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586, 589, 9 S.Ct. 173, 32 L.Ed. 543 (1888); Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 738, 824, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824); 2 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 2.......
-
Rodriguez v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.
...is one in which the Federal court could have exercised original jurisdiction at the time of removal, Metcalf v. City of Watertown, 1888, 128 U.S. 586, 588-590, 9 S.Ct. 173, 32 L.Ed. 543, but also that the action is one in which the State court has jurisdiction over the subject matter at the......
-
Town of Springfield, Vt. v. McCarren
...above cases Mottley, Tennessee v. Union and Planters Bank, 152 U.S. 454, 14 S.Ct. 654, 38 L.Ed. 511 (1894); Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586, 9 S.Ct. 173, 32 L.Ed. 543 (1888) , the federal plaintiff's cause of action against the defendant was not grounded in federal law; he merely sought ......
-
Streckfus Steamers, Inc. v. Kiersky
... ... S. F. DAVIS, ... Suit by ... Abe Kiersky, Assessor and Tax Collector of the City of ... Vicksburg, against the Streckfus Steamers, Inc. From an ... adverse judgment, defendant ... R. Co. v ... Davidson, 157 U.S. 201, 39 L.Ed. 672, 15 S.Ct. 563; ... Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586, 32 L.Ed. 543, 9 ... S.Ct. 173; Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., ... ...
-
Removal jurisdiction and the All Writs Act.
...and citing a long line of authorities in support of the well-pleaded complaint rule, starting with Metcalf v. City of Watertown, 128 U.S. 586 (1888)); see also Donald L. Doernberg, There's No Reason for It; It's Just Our Policy: Why the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule Sabotages the Purposes of ......
-
The puzzle of complete preemption.
...Act of 1789 conferred something akin to general federal question jurisdiction on the federal courts). (9) See Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586, 589 (1888) ("[I]t must appear, at the outset, from the declaration or the hill of the party suing, that the suit is of [a federal] character...."......
-
A Modified Theory of the Law of Federal Courts: the Case of Arising-under Jurisdiction
...at 2157-70. 132. 299 U.S. 109 (1936). 133. Id. at 112-13 (citations omitted). 134. Id. at 197-98; see also Metcalf v. City of Watertown, 128 U.S. 586, 589 (1888). 135. Tennessee v. Union and Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454, 459 (1894). 136. Louisville and Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S......
-
WAS BIVENS NECESSARY?
...id. at 154 (citing prior cases applying the well-pleaded complaint rule to cases filed originally in federal court); Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586 (1888). The Court would later read the 1887 revisions to the removal provisions as also requiring that the federal question appear on the f......