From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Anderson

U.S.
May 25, 1914
234 U.S. 74 (1914)

Summary

holding that whether the case arises under federal law "must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim . . . unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose"

Summary of this case from York v. Day Transfer Co.

Opinion

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA.

No. 338.

Submitted April 30, 1914. Decided May 25, 1914.

Whether a case begun in a District Court is one arising under the Constitution or a law or treaty of the United States in the sense of the jurisdictional statute (Judicial Code, § 24), must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the declaration unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which may be interposed by defendant. 197 F. 383, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States under § 24, Judicial Code, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Napoleon B. Maxey for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. H.A. Ledbetter for defendants in error.


The judgment here under review is one of dismissal for want of jurisdiction. The action was in ejectment. The petition alleged that the plaintiffs were owners in fee and entitled to the possession; that the defendants had forcibly taken possession and were wrongfully keeping the plaintiffs out of possession, and that the latter were damaged thereby in a sum named. Nothing more was required to state a good cause of action. Snyder's Comp. Laws Okla., §§ 5627, 6122; Joy v. St. Louis, 201 U.S. 332, 340. But the petition, going beyond what was required, alleged with much detail that the defendants were asserting ownership in themselves under a certain deed and that it was void under the legislation of Congress restricting the alienation of lands allotted to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians. However essential or appropriate these allegations might have been in a bill in equity to cancel or annul the deed, they were neither essential nor appropriate in a petition in ejectment. Apparently, their purpose was to anticipate and avoid a defense which it was supposed the defendants would interpose, but, of course, it rested with the defendants to select their ground of defense, and it well might be that this one would not be interposed. In the orderly course, the plaintiffs were required to state their own case in the first instance and then to deal with the defendants' after it should be disclosed in the answer. Snyder's Comp. Laws, §§ 5634, 5642, 5668; Boston c. Mining Co. v. Montana Ore Co., 188 U.S. 632, 639. Diversity of citizenship was not alleged, and, unless the allegations respecting the invalidity, under the legislation of Congress, of the defensive claim attributed to the defendants operated to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, the judgment of dismissal was plainly right.

It is now contended that these allegations showed that the case was one arising under the laws of the United States, namely, the acts restricting the alienation of Choctaw and Chickasaw allotments, and therefore brought it within the Circuit Court's jurisdiction. But the contention overlooks repeated decisions of this court by which it has become firmly settled that whether a case is one arising under the Constitution or a law or treaty of the United States, in the sense of the jurisdictional statute (now § 24, Judicial Code), must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose. Tennessee v. Union and Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454, 460, 464; Third Street Railway Co. v. Lewis, 173 U.S. 457, 460; Florida Central Railroad Co. v. Bell, 176 U.S. 321, 329; Boston c. Mining Co. v. Moniana Ore Co., supra; Joy v. St. Louis, supra; Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U.S. 313, 333; Louisville Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 569; Denver v. New York Trust Co., 229 U.S. 123, 133-135. Tested by this standard, as it must be, the case disclosed by the petition was not one arising under a law of the United States.

Whether or not in other respects the plaintiffs overlooked an authorized mode of securing relief to which they may be entitled need not now be considered. See 35 Stat. 312, 314, c. 199, § 6; Bowling v. United States, 233 U.S. 528, and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Anderson

U.S.
May 25, 1914
234 U.S. 74 (1914)

holding that whether the case arises under federal law "must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim . . . unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose"

Summary of this case from York v. Day Transfer Co.

holding anticipated defense cannot provide federal question jurisdictional basis

Summary of this case from Sebring Homes v. T.R. Arnold, (N.D.Ind. 1995)

denying a federal common law ejectment claim where plaintiffs were individual Indians and the suit concerned lands allocated to individual Indians—not tribal rights to land

Summary of this case from Wolfchild v. Redwood Cnty.

recognizing that the federal issue must exist on the face of plaintiff's complaint "unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose"

Summary of this case from Drawhorn v. Qwest Communications Intern., Inc.

In Taylor, the plaintiffs were individual Indians, not an Indian tribe; and the suit concerned lands allocated to individual Indians, not tribal rights to lands.

Summary of this case from Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida

stating "whether a case is one arising under the Constitution or a law or treaty of the United States, ... [jurisdiction] must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim"

Summary of this case from Harlow v. Allen Rebecca Heard, & Progressive Ins. Co.

stating that federal question jurisdiction "must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose"

Summary of this case from Bennett v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.

stating that federal question jurisdiction "must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose"

Summary of this case from Crossman v. Leslie's Poolmart, Inc.

stating that federal question jurisdiction "must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose"

Summary of this case from Hill v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC

stating that federal question jurisdiction "must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose"

Summary of this case from Fortescue v. Ecolab Inc.

stating that federal question jurisdiction "must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose"

Summary of this case from Davis v. Staples, Inc.

stating that federal question jurisdiction "must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose"

Summary of this case from Bradford v. Bank of America Corporation

laying out the "well-pleaded complaint rule" in which subject matter jurisdiction is "determined from what...appears in the plaintiff's statements of his own claim...unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which is thought the defendant may interpose."

Summary of this case from ECR Software Corp. v. Zaldivar

stating that federal question jurisdiction "must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose."

Summary of this case from Yung Hsing Ger v. Safeway, Inc.

explaining that whether a case arises under federal law "must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose"

Summary of this case from Upper Peninsula Power Company v. Sliger

noting that a well-pleaded complaint for the purposes of conferring "arising under" jurisdiction is one where the court considers only what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement or claim, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance or defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose

Summary of this case from Precision Pay Phones v. Qwest Communications Corp.

In Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 34 S.Ct. 724, 58 L.Ed. 1218 (1914), a case cited by the Court in Franchise Tax Board, the plaintiffs brought an action in ejectment under state law in which they alleged that they were the owners of the property and entitled to possession.

Summary of this case from Vandenbroeck v. Contimortgage Corporation

In Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 107 S.Ct. 1542, as in the present case, the plaintiff asserted causes of action based strictly upon state law, alleging that his employer improperly refused to pay him benefits as contemplated in an employee benefit plan. Arguing ERISA preemption, the defendant removed the case to federal court.

Summary of this case from Shackelton v. Connecticut General Life Ins.

stating that federal-question jurisdiction "must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's own claim in the bill or declaration"

Summary of this case from Com. of Mass. v. V M Management, Inc.

In Taylor, as in this case, the plaintiffs were Indians who brought suit to remove the defendant from possession of property which plaintiffs claimed was not subject to alienation under federal law.

Summary of this case from Brooks v. Nez Perce County

In Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 34 S.Ct. 724, 58 L.Ed. 1218 (1914), the Court stated that all that was necessary to state a good cause of action for ejectment was a statement that the plaintiffs were the owners in fee and were entitled to possession; that the defendants had taken possession forcibly and remained there wrongfully; that they were keeping the plaintiffs out of possession; and that the plaintiffs had suffered damages.

Summary of this case from Lang v. Colonial Pipeline Company

stating that "whether a case is one arising under the Constitution or a law or treaty of the United States, in the sense of the jurisdictional statute, . . . must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose."

Summary of this case from Reeds v. Walker
Case details for

Taylor v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:TAYLOR v . ANDERSON

Court:U.S.

Date published: May 25, 1914

Citations

234 U.S. 74 (1914)
34 S. Ct. 724

Citing Cases

Round Valley Indian Housing Authority v. Hunter

Id. at 732. Chuska is consistent with Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 34 S.Ct. 724, 58 L.Ed. 1218 (1914),…

Oneida Ind. Nation of N.Y. v. Cty. of Oneida

As to this, a long and unbroken line of Supreme Court decisions holds that the complaint in such an action…