Joy v. City of St. Louis

Citations

• 201 U.S. 332
• 26 S. Ct. 478
• 50 L. Ed. 776
• 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1793

Syllabus

<p>Where diversity of citizenship does not exist, plaintiff cannot make out a case as arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States so as to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction, unless it necessarily appears by his complaint' in stating his own claim, and it cannot be made to appear by an assertion in plaintiff's pleading, that the defense raises a Federal question.</p> <p>The mere fact that plaintiff’s title comes from a patent or under an act of Congress does not necessarily involve a Federal question; there must be an actual dispute as to. the construction of the patent or act.</p> <p>While the Federal court construes Government grants without reference to the construction adopted by the States for their grants, the incidents attached to ownership of property conveyed by the United States bordering on a navigable stream are to be determined by the State in which it is situated subject to the limitation that its rules do1 not impair the efficacy of the grant or its use by the grantee.</p> <p>Whether land contained in an original patent reached tp a river under the distances called for is a question of fact, and whether the patentee is entitled to accretion is a question of local and not Federal law, and ejectment for the land made by accretion cannot, where diversity cif citizenship does not exist, be maintained in the Circuit Court as a case arising under the laws of the United States.</p> <p>Although a case'may not be one on plaintiff’s statement of which the Circuit Court has jurisdiction as arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, if the case is brought in the-state court questions of a Federal nature may arise during the trial, and the party who specially sets up a Federal right which is denied may have the same reviewed by this court by writ of error under § 709, Rev. Stat.</p>