State of Arkansas v. Choctaw & M.R. Co.

• Citation: 134 F. 106
• Parties: STATE OF ARKANSAS v. CHOCTAW & M.R. CO. et al.
• Decision Date: 13 January 1905
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

134 F. 106

STATE OF ARKANSAS v. CHOCTAW & M.R. CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division.

January 13, 1905

Syllabus by the Court

To entitle a party to remove a cause from a state to a federal court upon the ground that a federal question is involved, it is necessary (1) that that fact appear from the plaintiff's statement of facts in the complaint; (2) that that allegation is real and substantial, and not without color or merit; (3) that it appear from the complaint that in some aspect which the case may assume, a federal question may really be involved, and that it is set up in good faith (4) that, if there is a doubt as to the right to remove, the doubt must be resolved against jurisdiction.

When the proposition claimed to raise the federal question has been definitely determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, it ceases to be a federal question, within the meaning of the removal acts of Congress.

G. W Murphy, Atty. Gen., and James P. Clarke, for the state of arkansas.

E. B. Peirce and John M. Moore, for defendants.

The state of Arkansas, by its Attorney General, filed its bill in the chancery court of Pulaski county, state of Arkansas praying for a decree that any lease or sale by the defendant Choctaw & Memphis Railroad Company of its railroad property and franchises to its codefendant the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company, and any lease of said property by the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company to the other defendant, Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, be declared void, canceled, and held for naught, and that by mandatory order of the court the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company and its lessees or grantees be required to surrender into the possession and control of the Choctaw & Memphis Railroad Company the said road, property, and franchises, and the said Choctaw & Memphis Railroad Company be vacated and declared forfeited, and for such other relief as complainant may be entitled to.

The defendants, after having entered their appearance in the state court, filed their petition and bond for removal to this court, upon the ground that, as shown by the bill of complaint, a federal question was involved. Complainant filed a motion to remand; denying that there is any federal question involved, within the meaning of the acts of Congress.

The material allegations of the bill, which it is claimed show that the relief demanded raises a federal question, are: That the defendant Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company is a corporation organized and existing under an act of Congress; that, in pursuance of section 3 of an act amending its original charter, approved March 28, 1900, c. 111, 31 Stat. 52, it claims to Choctaw & Memphis Railroad Company. This provision of the supplemental act under which that company acted is as follows: 'That it shall and may be lawful for the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company to purchase the franchises, railroad and other property of, or consolidate with, any other railroad company incorporated under the laws of any state or territory of the United States whose lines may now or hereafter form a continuous line of railroad with it, either directly or by means of an intervening railroad, upon complying with the regulations and requirements of the laws of the state or territory in which such road is located applicable to such purchase or consolidation. ' That the Choctaw & Memphis Railroad Company is a corporation organized and existing under the general laws of the state of Arkansas for the incorporation of railroad companies, and among the powers conferred upon such railroad corporations organized under such general laws are those contained in section 2, p. 43 of the act of the General Assembly of said state of March 13, 1889, which provides: 'Any railroad company in this state existing under general or special laws may sell its road, property and franchises to any railroad company duly organized and existing under the laws of any other state or territory whose line of railroad shall so connect with the leased or purchased road by bridge, ferry or otherwise as to practically form a continuous line of railroad. ' That the Choctaw & Memphis Railroad Company had authority, under its articles of incorporation, to acquire, construct, operate, and own a line of railroad from a point in Crittenden county opposite Memphis, Tenn., westwardly to the Indian Territory border, at a point in Sebastian county. It is further charged that the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company is now in the possession of and is operating the line of the Choctaw & Memphis Railroad Company under claim of ownership, and that the other defendant, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, is its lessee. It is then charged that any lease or sale of the road, property, and franchises by the defendant Choctaw & Memphis Railroad Company to the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company is wholly unauthorized and void, for want of power of a railroad corporation existing under the laws of the state of Arkansas to sell or lease its property and franchises to a corporation existing under the laws of the United States.

TRIEBER, District Judge (after stating the facts).

To justify the assumption of jurisdiction by a federal court either originally or on removal from a state court, upon the ground that a federal question is involved, the fact that the cause is one arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States must appear from plaintiff's statement of facts in the complaint, and cannot be aided by the allegations in the petition or answer. Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454, 14 Sup.Ct. 654, 38 L.Ed. 511; Arkansas v. K. & T. Coal Co., 183 U.S. 185, 22 Sup.Ct. 47, 46 L.Ed. 144; Filhiol v. Torney, 194 U.S. 356, 24 Sup.Ct. 698, 48 L.Ed. 1014; Fergus Falls Water Co. v. Fergus Falls, 72 F. 873, 19 C.C.A. 212, Joy v. St. Louis (C.C.) 122 F. 524; St. Louise, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Davis (C.C.) 132 F. 629. The mere fact that the bill alleges...