Smyth v. Asphalt Belt Ry

• Decision Date: 02 March 1925
• Docket Number: No. 206,206
• Citation: 69 L.Ed. 629,267 U.S. 326,45 S.Ct. 242
• Parties: SMYTH et al. v. ASPHALT BELT RY. Co. et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

267 U.S. 326

45 S.Ct. 242

69 L.Ed. 629

SMYTH et al.

v ASPHALT BELT RY. Co. et al.

No. 206.

Argued January 20, 1925.

Decided March 2, 1925.

Messrs. Robert H. Kelley, Frank Andrews, and T. W. Gregory, all of Houston, Tex., for appellants.

Messrs. Mason Williams and J. D. Wheeler, both of San Antonio, Tex., for appellees.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the federal court for Western Texas which dismissed a bill in equity with costs. There was a full hearing upon pleadings and evidence. The plaintiffs had moved for an interlocutory injunction; the defendants to dismiss the bill. 292 F. 876. The decree recited, as the ground for dismissal, 'that the court is without jurisdiction.' The plaintiff took an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, assigning 15 errors, of which only a few referred in any way to jurisdiction. The appellate court was of opinion that, under the rule declared in United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109, 15 S. Ct. 39, 39 L. Ed. 87, it was without jurisdiction, because the jurisdiction of the District Court had been challenged and the decision there was in favor of the defendants. The Circuit Court of Appeals therefore transferred the case to this court, pursuant to Judicial Code, § 238a, as added by Act Sept. 14, 1922, c. 305, 42 Stat. 837 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1215a). See McMillan Contracting Co. v. Abernathy, 263 U. S. 438, 44 S. Ct. 200, 68 L. Ed. 378. Whether the transfer should have been made is the preliminary question requiring decision, although not raised by counsel. Smith v. Apple, 264 U. S. 274, 275, 44 S. Ct. 311, 68 L. Ed. 678.

If the jurisdiction of the District Court as a federal court was the question there in issue, and was the only question, it is clear that, under section 238 (Comp. st. § 1215), this court alone had jurisdiction of the appeal (Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499, 508, 16 S. Ct. 397, 40 L. Ed. 510; The Carlo Poma, 255 U. S. 219, 41 S. Ct. 309, 65 L. Ed. 594), and it was proper to transfer the case (Hoffman v. McClelland, 264 U. S. 552, 44 S. Ct. 407, 68 L. Ed. 845). But if the question, called one of jurisdiction by the lower courts, was not in fact a question of the jurisdiction of the federal court as such, but whether the action complained of violated a federal law (Louie v. United States, 254 U. S. 548, 41 S. Ct. 188, 65 L. Ed. 399; Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc., 263 U. S. 291, 304-308, 44 S. Ct. 96, 68 L. Ed. 308), or whether a power possessed by the court should be exercised (Smith v. Apple, 264 U. S. 274, 44 S. Ct. 311, 68 L. Ed. 678; Oliver American Trading Co., Inc., v. Mexico, 264 U. S. 440, 44 S. Ct. 390, 68 L. Ed. 778), then the appeal was properly taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The proceedings in the District Court, including its opinion and decree, and the briefs filed in this court, show that at no time was the jurisdiction of the trial court as a federal court questioned there, and that its jurisdiction as a federal court was clear. The suit was brought as one 'arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and particularly under' the Act to Regulate Commerce as amended. The sum involved was alleged to exceed $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs. All the defendants were alleged to be citizens and residents of the district. All were duly served. All appeared generally, answered, and introduced evidence. The motion to dismiss assigned the grounds therefor, and lack of jurisdiction of the court as a federal court was not one of them. Lack of merits, lack of equity, and lack of that status which alone would entitle a private individual to sue were the objections urged. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter was also asserted in terms, but the pleadings and the opinion of the District Court show that this expression was not intended as a challenge of the jurisdiction of the court as a federal court, but as a denial of fundamental allegations in the bill essential to a cause of action, and to the relief under the federal statute invoked.

The bill alleged that the plaintiffs owned...