In a suit in equity in a circuit court to obtain a release of
land from liability under a deed of trust, the plaintiff had a
decree. On an appeal to this Court by the defendant, no evidence of
the jurisdiction of the circuit court on the ground of citizenship
was found in the record. This Court reversed the decree with costs
and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The decree reversing the decree of the circuit court in this
case on the ground that the record contained no evidence of the
jurisdiction of that court was then vacated because the record
showed that the suit was brought to restrain the enforcement of a
judgment in ejectment recovered in the same circuit court.
Bill in equity. The prayer of the bill was that the
complainants
"may have the order and decree of the court releasing
Page 125 U. S. 643
their said lands from further responsibility under the said
original deed of trust from James F. Robinson to Lycurgus L. L.
Johnson, and the cloud upon their title to said lands and premises
by virtue of the sale and purchase by defendant of their said lands
and premises at the sale made by I. L. Worthington and Theodore
Johnson, as executors, &c., as aforesaid, be removed, and that
the pretended deed made to the defendant at such sale for the lands
of complainants be decreed to be delivered up and cancelled, and
that in the meantime complainants may have a temporary restraining
order, issuing out of and under the seal of this court, enjoining
and restraining defendant -- enforcing or attempting to enforce his
judgment in ejectment against said lands until the further order of
the court, and that at the final hearing hereof said injunction be
made perpetual,"
and for further relief.
The decree was in the complainants' favor, from which the
respondent appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas by George
Christian and Jerry Stuart against Joel Johnson to obtain a decree
for the release of certain land from liability under a deed of
trust. The defendant appeared and answered, a replication was
filed, and proofs were taken. The court, on final hearing, made a
decree in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant has appealed to
this Court.
On looking into the record, we can find no evidence of the
jurisdiction of the circuit court. The bill commences in this way:
"The complainants, George Christian and Jerry Stuart, citizens of
the County of Chicot and State of Arkansas, would respectfully
represent," etc. Joel Johnson is the sole defendant, but there is
no allegation as to his citizenship, nor does that appear anywhere
in the record. Under these circumstances,
Page 125 U. S. 644
this Court must take notice for itself of the absence of the
averment of the necessary facts to show the jurisdiction of the
circuit court, and must reverse the decree, in accordance with the
settled practice.
It is only necessary to refer to the case of
Continental
Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237,
where it was said, citing numerous cases:
"It was settled at a very early day that the facts on which the
jurisdiction on the circuit court rest must, in some form, appear
on the face of the record of all suits prosecuted before them,"
and that "it is error for a court to proceed without its
jurisdiction is shown."
It was also said in the same case, citing
Morgan v.
Gay, 19 Wall. 81, and
Robertson v. Cease,
97 U. S. 646, that
if the party in regard to whom the necessary citizenship was not
shown actually possessed such citizenship, the record could not be
amended in this Court so as to show the fact, but that the court
below might, in its discretion, allow that to be done when the case
should get back there.
In accordance with these views,
The decree of the circuit court is reversed, with costs, and
the case is remanded to that court for further
proceedings.
Page 125 U. S. 645
On petition for reconsideration
In this case, on the 16th of April last, this Court made a
decree reversing with costs the decree of the circuit court and
remanding the case to that court for further proceedings. This was
done upon the view that the record contained no evidence of the
jurisdiction of the circuit court arising out of the citizenship of
the parties; but the fact was overlooked that the bill states that
the defendant had obtained a judgment in ejectment in the same
court (the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern
District of Arkansas), and was seeking to oust the plaintiffs from
the possession of the land involved by a writ of possession founded
on the judgment. The bill further sets forth that the plaintiffs in
this suit, who are the appellants, had not been admitted to
interpose in the ejectment suit an equitable defense to the same,
which they state with particularity in the bill in this suit, and
which they seek to avail themselves of herein. One of the prayers
of the bill is for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant
from enforcing or attempting to enforce against the land the
judgment in ejectment. The answer admits the recovery of the
judgment in the same court.
Page 125 U. S. 646
This is sufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction of the
case without any averment of the citizenship of the parties, and
not only is the present suit in equity merely an incident of and
ancillary to the ejectment suit, but no other court than the one
which rendered the judgment in the ejectment suit could interfere
with it, or stay process in it, on the grounds set forth in the
bill.
Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul
Co., 2 Wall. 609,
69 U. S. 633;
Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276;
Pacific Railroad v. Missouri Pacific Railway, 111 U.
S. 505.
The decree made by this Court on the 16th of April last is
therefore vacated, and the case will stand for hearing on the
merits at the next term of this Court, in its order on the
docket.
