Skip to main content
· 12/16/1895

Lehigh Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Kelly

Citations

  • 160 U.S. 327
  • 16 S. Ct. 307
  • 40 L. Ed. 444
  • 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2369

Syllabus

<p>It is established doctrine, to which the court adheres, that the constitutional privilege of a grantee or purchaser of property,- being a citizen of one of the States, to invoke the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court of the United States for the protection of his rights as against a citizen- of another State — the value of the matter in dispute being sufficient for the purpose — cannot’be affected or impaired merely because of the motive that induced his grantor to convey, or his vendee to sell and deliver, the property, provided such conveyance or such sale and delivery was a real transaction by which the title passed without the grantor or vendor reserving or having any right or power to compel or require a reconveyance or return to him of the property in question.</p> <p>Citizens of Virginia were in possession of lands in that State, claiming title, to which also a corporation organized under the laws of Virginia had for some years laid claim. In order to transfer the corporation’s title and claim to a citizen of another State, thus giving a Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction over an action to recover the lands,'the stockholders of the Virginia corporation organized themselves into a corporation under the laws of Pennsylvania, and the Virginia corporation then conveyed the lands to the Pennsylvania corporation, and the latter corporation brought this action against the citizens of Virginia to recover possession of the lands. No consideration passed for the transfer. Both corporations still exist. Held, that these facts took this case out of the operation of the established doctrine above stated and made of the transaction a mere device to give jurisdiction to the Circuit Court, and that it was a fraud upon that court, as well as a wrong to the defendants.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “The burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction . . . is on the plaintiff, the party asserting jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harlan, Shiras, Field, Brown

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.