Chappell v. Waterworth, 156
U. S. 102, affirmed to the point that a case not
depending on the citizenship of the parties nor otherwise specially
provided for cannot be removed from a state court into the circuit
court of the United States, as one arising under the Constitution,
laws or treaties of the United States unless that appears by the
plaintiff's own statement; and, if it does not so appear, the want
cannot be supplied by any statement in the petition for removal or
in the subsequent pleadings.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The action below was commenced in April, 1890, in the District
Court of Harvey County, Kansas, by Collins and Bretch to recover
damages from the present plaintiffs in error for an alleged
unlawful seizure of goods and chattels, the property of the
plaintiffs. In their answer, the defendants averred that during the
times mentioned in the complaint, the defendant Walker was the
Marshal of the United
Page 167 U. S. 58
States for the District of Kansas, and the other defendants were
his deputies, and that the seizure complained of was made under the
authority of an order of attachment issued out of the Circuit Court
of the United States for the District of Kansas in an action
therein pending in which E. H. Van Ingen & Co. were plaintiffs
and H. Cannon was defendant, and it was averred that the goods were
liable to be seized by virtue of said order of attachment as the
property of said Cannon. Thereafter the defendants made application
for the removal of the cause into the Circuit Court of the United
States for the District of Kansas upon the ground that the action
and the defense thereto arose under the laws of the United States.
The application was denied, but subsequently, on application of the
plaintiffs, the court reconsidered its decision, rescinded its
former action, and allowed the application, the order entered
reciting, "The plaintiffs interposing no objection thereto."
On June 4, 1890, after the removal of the cause into the federal
court, a motion was filed by the attorneys for plaintiffs to remand
the cause to the district court of Harvey County, Kansas, for the
reason that the record and petition for removal showed no
sufficient ground for such removal, and that the record and
petition did not set up and show sufficient court jurisdiction over
the cause by removal. The record does not show that any action was
taken by the court upon this motion.
A judgment recovered by the plaintiff was reversed by the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 50 F. 737. Upon a
second trial, in November, 1892, the plaintiff again recovered
judgment, which, on error, was affirmed by the appellate court. 59
F. 70. A writ of error was allowed, the cause was brought to this
Court, and it is now sought to obtain a reversal of the judgment of
affirmance rendered by the circuit court of appeals.
Various specifications of error are assigned in this Court. We
need, however, only consider the first specification discussed in
the brief of counsel for the plaintiffs in error, to-wit,
Page 167 U. S. 59
that the circuit court and circuit court of appeals were without
jurisdiction over the controversy, and the judgments rendered were
erroneous by reason of the fact that the cause was improperly
removed from the state court. This objection must be sustained upon
the authority of
Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 U.
S. 102. That was an action of ejectment brought in a
state court, both plaintiff and defendant being residents of the
same state, the declaration merely describing the land and alleging
an ouster of the plaintiff by the defendant. The cause was removed
into a circuit court of the United States upon the petition of the
defendant setting forth that the United States owned and held the
land for a lighthouse, and that the defendant was holding
possession as the keeper thereof under the authority of the United
States. This Court declined to consider the question presented by
the record and argued at the bar because the cause was removed into
the circuit court of the United States without authority of law,
holding that, under the Acts of March 3, 1887, c. 373, and August
13, 1888, c. 866, a case (not depending on the citizenship of the
parties, nor otherwise specially provided for) cannot be removed
from a state court into the circuit court of the United States as
one arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States unless that appears by the plaintiff's statement of his own
claim; and, if it does not so appear, the want cannot be supplied
by any statement in the petition for removal or in the subsequent
pleadings.
As in the complaint in the case at bar there are no facts
averred showing that the controversy was one arising under the laws
of the United States, and it was not essential to the statement of
the cause of action that such facts should be averred, the case
comes directly within the operation of the ruling cited. In
reversing the judgments, however, as the cause was removed from the
state court upon the application of the present plaintiffs in
error, all the costs from the time of such removal must be borne by
them.
Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U.
S. 482,
155 U. S. 488, and
cases cited.
Page 167 U. S. 60
The judgments below are reversed, and the cause is remanded
to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of
Kansas, with directions to remand the cause to the district court
of Harvey county, Kansas.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissents.