United States v. Kentucky River Mills

• Decision Date: 19 January 1891
• Citation: 45 F. 273
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. KENTUCKY RIVER MILLS et al.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Kentucky

45 F. 273

UNITED STATES v. KENTUCKY RIVER MILLS et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Kentucky.

January 19, 1891

George W. Jolly, U.S. Atty.

Thomas H. Hines, for commissioners of sinking fund.

D. W Lindsey, for Kentucky River Mills.

BARR J.

The plaintiff has sued the defendant the Kentucky River Mills for the rent of land and water-power from the Kentucky river used by it, under the provisions of a lease made by the sinking fund commissioners of the state of Kentucky with said mill company, which lease is still a subsisting one under the terms of the act of cession made by the state of Kentucky to the United States. The amount sued for is less than $2,000 exclusive of interest and cost, and the question is whether this court has jurisdiction of the case. This depends upon the construction of the act approved August 13, 1888 amending the judiciary act of March 3, 1875. A brief history of the legislation of congress previous to this act will perhaps aid in a proper construction of that act. The act of 1789 gave the circuit courts jurisdiction in suits of a civil nature, at common law and in equity, and limited them to those where the matter in dispute exceeded $500 in amount or value, even though the United States were the plaintiffs or petitioners. The circuit courts were given jurisdiction of all cases, in law or equity, arising under the revenue laws of the United States, without limit as to the amount in controversy, by the act of March 2, 1833. See 4 St.at Large, p. 632. And a similar jurisdiction was given the circuit courts of cases under the postal laws by the act of March 2, 1845. And the jurisdiction of circuit courts was further extended by subsequent acts to embrace all cases arising under the internal revenue laws. Thus the law stood when the revision of the statutes was made, in 1873. The Revised Statutes states, or a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming subsections, without lessening or enlarging it, except that in suits at common law the jurisdiction was given without limit as to amount in dispute, when the United States were plaintiffs. The first section of the act of March 3, 1875, enacted-- 'That the circuit courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or in which the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states, or a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, or a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.'

This act repealed all acts and parts of acts in conflict with its provisions, and hence the third subsection of section 629 of the Revised Statutes was repealed by it. U.S. v. Huffmaster, 35 F. 81. But it did not repeal the jurisdiction of the circuit court in special cases over particular subjects which that court had under existing laws. U.S. v. Mooney, 116 U.S. 107, 6 S.Ct. 304. It, however, applied the limitation of $500 to all the cases in which jurisdiction was given by the first section of the act, so that under the act of 1875, the matter in dispute must have exceeded $500, if not of those special cases of which the circuit court had jurisdiction because of other acts and the subject-matter of the litigation.

The first section of the act of August 18, 1888, is as follows:

'That the circuit courts of the United States shall have original cognizance concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, or in which there shall be a controversy between the citizens of different states, or in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid, or a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, or

...