A cause of action arises "under" the laws of the United States
when an appropriate statement by the plaintiff, unaided by any
anticipation or avoidance of defenses, discloses that it really and
substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the
validity, construction, or effect of an act of Congress. P.
252 U. S. 512.
A suit by a national bank to restrain the Comptroller of the
Currency from alleged unlawful and malicious practices, wherein
plaintiff's right turns on construction and application of the
National Banking Law, is a suit to enjoin him under that law within
the intendment of Jud.Code, §§ 24, 49, must be brought in the
district where the bank is established, and may be maintained upon
service made elsewhere -- in this case, in the District of
Columbia. P.
252 U. S.
50.
20 F. 674 reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Page 252 U. S. 508
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant, whose place of business is within the Middle District
of Pennsylvania, brought this suit in the United States district
court for that district, seeking an injunction to prevent John
Skelton Williams, Comptroller of the Currency, from doing certain
things under color of his office declared to be threatened,
unlawful, arbitrary, and oppressive.
The bill alleges that, in order to injure complainant's
president, towards whom he entertained personal ill will, the
Comptroller determined to destroy its business, and to that end he
had maliciously persecuted and oppressed it for three years in the
following ways, among others: by often demanding special reports
and information beyond the powers conferred upon him by law; by
disclosing confidential and official information concerning it to
banks, members of Congress, representatives of the press, and the
public generally; by inciting litigation against it and its
officers; by publishing and disseminating false statements charging
it with unlawful acts and improper conduct and reflecting upon its
solvency, and by distributing to depositors, stockholders and
others alarming statements intended to affect its credit, etc.,
etc. -- and further, that, unless restrained, he would continue
these and similar malicious and oppressive practices.
Williams is a citizen of Virginia, officially stationed at
Washington. He was not summoned while in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, but a subpoena was served upon him in Washington by
the United States marshal. Having
Page 252 U. S. 509
specially appeared, he successfully challenged the jurisdiction
of the court, and the cause is here upon certificate to that
effect.
Generally, a district court cannot acquire jurisdiction over an
individual without service of process upon him while in the
district for which it is held. But here, a national bank seeks to
enjoin the Comptroller, and the claim is that, by statutory
direction, the proceeding must be had in the district where the
association is located, and not elsewhere. The court below took the
contrary view. 260 F. 674.
Determination of the matter requires consideration of three
sections of the Judicial Code.
"Sec. 24. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction
as follows:"
"
* * * *"
"Sixteenth. Of all cases commenced by the United States, or by
direction of any officer thereof, against any national banking
association, and cases for winding up the affairs of any such bank,
and of all suits brought by any banking association established in
the district for which the court is held, under the provisions of
title 'National Banks,' Revised Statutes, to enjoin the Comptroller
of the Currency, or any receiver acting under his direction, as
provided by said title. And all national banking associations
established under the laws of the United States shall, for the
purposes of all other actions by or against them, real, personal,
or mixed, and all suits in equity, be deemed citizens of the states
in which they are respectively located."
"Sec. 49. All proceedings by any national banking association to
enjoin the Comptroller of the Currency, under the provisions of any
law relating to national banking associations, shall be had in the
district where such association is located."
"Sec. 51. Except as provided in the five succeeding sections, no
person shall be arrested in one district for trial
Page 252 U. S. 510
in another in any civil action before a district court, and,
except as provided in the six succeeding sections, no civil suit
shall be brought in any district court against any person by any
original process or proceeding in any other district than that
whereof he is an inhabitant; but where the jurisdiction is founded
only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different
states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence
of either the plaintiff or the defendant."
If §§ 24 and 49 properly construed restrict this proceeding to
the district where the bank is located, they displace § 51
pro
tanto and authorize service of process upon defendant wherever
found.
United States v. Congress Construction Co.,
222 U. S. 199,
222 U. S.
203.
It is said for appellee that both §§ 24 and 49 relate to
injunction proceedings brought under the National Banking Law --
such proceedings as are thereby expressly authorized and no others.
And further that such law only authorizes suit by a bank to enjoin
the Comptroller when he undertakes to act because of its alleged
refusal to redeem circulating notes. Rev.Stats. § 5237.
The Act of February 25, 1863, establishing national banks, c.
58, 12 Stats. 665, 681:
"Sec. 59.
And be it further enacted, that suits,
actions, and proceedings by and against any association under this
act may be had in any circuit, district, or territorial court of
the United States held within the district in which such
association may be established."
An act to provide a national currency, secured by a pledge of
United States bonds, approved June 3, 1864c. 106, 13 Stats. 99,
116:
"Sec. 57.
And be it further enacted, that suits,
actions and proceedings, against any association under this act may
be had in any circuit, district, or territorial court of the United
States held within the district in which such association may be
established, or in any state, county, or
Page 252 U. S. 511
municipal court in the county or city in which said association
is located, having jurisdiction in similar cases:
Provided,
however, that all proceedings to enjoin the Comptroller under
this act shall be had in a circuit, district, or territorial court
of the United States held in the district in which the association
is located."
In
Kennedy v.
Gibson (1869), 8 Wall. 498,
75 U. S. 506,
this Court ruled that § 57 should be construed as if it read: "And
be it further enacted, that suits, actions and proceedings
by
and against," etc., the words "by and" having been
accidentally omitted.
"It is not to be supposed that Congress intended to exclude the
associations from suing in the courts where they can be sued. . . .
Such suits may still be brought by the associations in the courts
of the United States."
And it further held "that receivers also may sue in the courts
of the United States by virtue of the act, without reference to the
locality of their personal citizenship."
The Revised Statutes:
"Sec. 629. The circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction
as follows:"
"
* * * *"
"Tenth. Of all suits by or against any banking association
established in the district for which the court is held, under any
law providing for national banking associations."
"Eleventh. Of all suits brought by
[or against] any
banking association established in the district for which the court
is held, under the provisions of title 'The National Banks,' to
enjoin the Comptroller of the Currency, or any receiver acting
under his direction, as provided by said title."
"Sec. 736. All proceedings by any national banking association
to enjoin the Comptroller of the Currency under the provisions of
any law relating to national banking associations shall be had in
the district where such association is located."
Parts of the foregoing subsections 10 and 11 were
Page 252 U. S. 512
joined in subsection 16, § 24, Judicial Code, and § 736 became §
49, Judicial Code.
What constitutes a cause arising "under" the laws of the United
States has been often pointed out by this Court. One does so arise
where an appropriate statement by the plaintiff, unaided by any
anticipation or avoidance of defenses, discloses that it really and
substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the
validity, construction, or effect of an act of Congress. If the
plaintiff thus asserts a right which will be sustained by one
construction of the law or defeated by another, the case is one
arising under that law.
Tennessee v. Union & Planters'
Bank, 152 U. S. 454;
Boston & Montana Mining Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing
Co., 188 U. S. 632;
Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313;
Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U. S. 74;
Hopkins v. Walker, 244 U. S. 486,
244 U. S. 489.
Clearly the plaintiff's bill discloses a case wherein his right to
recover turns on the construction and application of the National
Banking Law, and we think the proceeding is one to enjoin the
Comptroller under provisions of that law within the true intendment
of the Judicial Code.
The decree below must be
Reversed.