A suit does not arise under the Constitution and laws of the
United States unless a dispute or controversy as to the effect or
construction thereof, upon the determination of which the result
depends, appears in the record by the plaintiff's pleading.
Where jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is rested on diverse
citizenship and plaintiff relies wholly on a common law right, the
fact that defendant invokes the Constitution and laws of the United
States does not make the action one arising under the Constitution
and laws of the United States, and the judgment of the circuit
court of appeals is final.
Where a trustee in bankruptcy commences an action in the state
court, its removal on the ground of diverse citizenship places it
in the circuit court as if it had been commenced there on that
ground of jurisdiction, and not as if it had been commenced there
by consent of defendant under section 23 of the Bankruptcy Act.
This was an action of trover commenced by plaintiff in error in
the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Lehigh, Pennsylvania,
October 18, 1900, the declaration averring in substance that, on
January 13, 1900, certain lumber and building materials were the
property of the firm of Bennett & Rothrock, and that, by virtue
of an adjudication in bankruptcy of that date, plaintiff succeeded
to the title of that firm to said lumber and materials, and that,
on January 15, 1900, defendant in error wrongfully converted the
lumber and materials to its own use.
November 19, 1900, defendant in error presented its bond and
petition for the removal of the cause to the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the
petition alleging that the controversy in the suit was wholly
between citizens of different states; that the plaintiff, trustee
in bankruptcy of Bennett & Rothrock, and Bennett & Rothrock
themselves, were at the time of the commencement of the suit, and
at the time the petition for removal was presented, citizens of the
State of Pennsylvania, and that the defendant was at the time of
the commencement
Page 191 U. S. 527
of the suit, and at the time the petition for removal was
presented, a citizen of New York, and thereupon the cause was
removed. The cause having been docketed and the record filed,
defendant filed a plea of not guilty, and a trial was had November
11, 1901, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff for $12,183. January
15, 1902, a motion by defendant for judgment
non obstante
veredicto was overruled and judgment entered in favor of
plaintiff, 112 F. 638, to review which defendant prosecuted a writ
of error from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, and that court on May 7, 1902, reversed the judgment
of the circuit court, and remanded the cause with instructions to
enter judgment for defendant on the verdict. 115 F. 689. This writ
of error was then allowed.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
In our opinion, the jurisdiction of the circuit court depended
entirely on diverse citizenship, the judgment of the circuit court
of appeals was final, and the writ of error must be dismissed.
Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Company v. Turck,
150 U. S. 138;
Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U. S. 408;
Press Publishing Company v. Monroe, 164 U.
S. 105.
The views expressed in the latter case will suffice to indicate
the governing rules. In that case, the complaint in the circuit
Page 191 U. S. 528
court showed that the parties were citizens of different states,
and did not claim under the Constitution or laws of the United
States. At the trial, plaintiff relied wholly upon a common law
right, but defendant invoked the Constitution and laws of the
United States. Judgment having passed for plaintiff, which was
affirmed by the circuit court of appeals, we dismissed a writ of
error to that court on the ground that its judgment was made final
by the statute. MR. JUSTICE GRAY, delivering the opinion, said:
"Of suits of a civil nature at law or in equity, the circuit
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction by reason of
the citizenship of the parties, in cases between citizens of
different states or between citizens of a state and aliens, and by
reason of the cause of action, 'in cases arising under the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made or
which shall be made under their authority,' including, of course,
suits arising under the patent or copyright laws of the United
States. Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, ยง 1, 25 Stat. 433;
Rev.Stat. section 629, cl. 9. In order to give the circuit court
jurisdiction of a case as one arising under the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of the United States, that it does so arise must appear
from the plaintiff's own statement of his claim.
Colorado
Company v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138;
Tennessee v.
Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454;
Oregon
&c. Railway. v. Skottowe, 162 U. S.
490;
Hanford v. Davies, 163 U. S.
273."
"From final judgments of the circuit court in civil suits, an
appeal or writ of error lies to this Court or to the circuit court
of appeals. It lies directly to this Court in any case in which the
jurisdiction of the circuit court is in issue, and in such case the
question of jurisdiction only is certified to and decided by this
Court. It also lies directly from the circuit court to this Court
in cases involving the construction or application of the
Constitution, or the constitutionality of a law, or the validity or
construction of a treaty of the United States, or in which the
Constitution or a law of a state is claimed to be in
contravention
Page 191 U. S. 529
of the Constitution of the United States, and in any of these
cases the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is not limited to
the constitutional question, but extends to the determination of
the whole case. Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, section 5, 26 Stat.
827, 828;
Horner v. United States, 143 U. S.
570;
Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S.
499."
"From final judgments of the circuit court in all other civil
suits, an appeal or writ of error lies to the circuit court of
appeals, and the judgments rendered thereon by the circuit court of
appeals are final (unless this Court, by writ of certiorari or
otherwise, orders the whole case to be brought up for its decision)
in all cases in which the jurisdiction of the circuit court 'is
dependent entirely upon the parties being aliens and citizens of
the United States, or citizens of different states,' as well as in
cases arising under the patent laws, or under the revenue laws. In
all other civil actions (including those arising under the
copyright laws of the United States), if the matter in controversy
exceeds $1,000 besides costs, there is, as of right, an appeal or
writ of error to bring the case to this Court. Act of March 3,
1891, c. 517, section 6."
"This plaintiff in error, having been defeated in the circuit
court, did not bring the case directly to this Court as one
involving the construction or application of the Constitution of
the United States, or upon any other of the grounds specified in
section 5 of the act of 1891. But it took the case, under section
6, to the circuit court of appeals, and, having been again defeated
in that court, now claims, as of right, a review by this Court of
the judgment of the circuit court of appeals."
"The judgment of the circuit court of appeals being made final
in all cases in which the jurisdiction of the circuit court is
dependent entirely upon the parties being citizens of different
states, but not final in cases arising under the copyright laws of
the United States, where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000,
the test of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court over the case
at bar is whether it was one arising under the copyright laws of
the United States, or was one in which
Page 191 U. S. 530
the jurisdiction of the circuit court wholly depended upon the
parties being citizens of different states."
"The complaint, alleging that the plaintiff was a citizen of
Illinois and the defendant a citizen of New York, and claiming
damages in a sum of more than $2,000, showed that the circuit court
had jurisdiction of the case by reason of the parties being
citizens of different states. The plaintiff, in her complaint, did
not claim any right under the Constitution and laws of the United
States, or in any way mention or refer to that Constitution or to
those laws; and at the trial, she relied wholly upon a right given
by the common law, and maintained her action upon such a right
only. It was the defendant, and not the plaintiff, who invoked the
Constitution and laws of the United States. This, as necessarily
follows from the foregoing considerations, and as was expressly
adjudged in
Colorado Co. v. Turck, supra, is insufficient
to support the jurisdiction of this Court to review, by appeal or
writ of error, the judgment of the circuit court of appeals."
"The jurisdiction of the circuit court having been obtained and
exercised solely because of the parties being citizens of different
states, the judgment of the circuit court of appeals was final, and
the writ of error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction."
In the present case, it is contended that the jurisdiction was
not dependent entirely on the opposite parties to the suit being
citizens of different states, because the suit arose under the laws
of the United States, and that therefore jurisdiction rested also
on that ground. But a suit does not so arise unless it really and
substantially involves a dispute or controversy as to the effect or
construction of the Constitution, or validity or construction of
the laws or treaties of the United States, upon the determination
of which the result depends, and which appears in the record by
plaintiff's pleading.
Arbuckle v. Blackburn, ante, p.
191 U. S. 405;
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Ann Arbor Railroad Co.,
178 U. S. 239;
Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co., 168 U.
S. 430.
Page 191 U. S. 531
Plaintiff's declaration set forth no matter raising any
controversy under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States. It is true that, if the lumber and materials belonged to
Bennett & Rothrock on January 13, 1900, plaintiff in error
succeeded to the title of the firm on the adjudication; but the
question of Bennett & Rothrock's ownership on that day, in
itself, involved no federal controversy, and the mere fact that
plaintiff was trustee in bankruptcy did not give jurisdiction.
Bardes v. Bank, 178 U. S. 524.
Indeed, if the case had not been removed, and had gone to judgment
in the court of common pleas, and that judgment had been affirmed
by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on the same grounds as those
on which the circuit court of appeals proceeded, a writ of error
could not have been brought under section 709 of the Revised
Statutes, for the case would not have fallen within either of the
classes enumerated in that section as the basis of our
jurisdiction. The validity of the Bankruptcy Act was conceded, and
no right specially set up or claimed under it was denied.
Section 23 of the Bankruptcy Law does not enable us to maintain
jurisdiction. The first two clauses read (before the amendment of
February 5, 1903 ) as follows:
"SEC. 23
a. The United States circuit courts shall have
jurisdiction of all controversies at law and in equity, as
distinguished from proceedings in bankruptcy, between trustees as
such and adverse claimants concerning the property acquired or
claimed by the trustees, in the same manner and to the same extent
only as though bankruptcy proceedings had not been instituted, and
such controversies had been between the bankrupts and such adverse
claimants."
"
b. Suits by the trustee shall only be brought or
prosecuted in the courts where the bankrupt whose estate is being
administered by such trustee might have brought or prosecuted them
if proceedings in bankruptcy had not been instituted, unless by
consent of the proposed defendant."
Plaintiff brought his action in the state court, and its
removal
Page 191 U. S. 532
on the ground of diverse citizenship placed it in the circuit
court as if it had been commenced there on that ground of
jurisdiction, and not as if it had been commenced there by consent
of defendant under section 23 of the Bankruptcy Act. The right to
removal is absolute, and cannot be trammeled by such a
consequence.
Nor can this writ of error be sustained under section 25 of the
Bankruptcy Law, for the section has no application. The reasons for
that conclusion will be found in
Holden v. Stratton,
191 U. S. 115.
As to the suggestion that certiorari might now be issued, the
judgment of the circuit court of appeals was rendered May 7, 1902,
and there is nothing to take the case out of the general rule.
The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 110;
Ayres v. Polsdorfer, 187 U. S. 585,
187 U. S.
595.
Writ of error dismissed.