Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
Citations
- 211 U.S. 149
- 29 S. Ct. 42
- 53 L. Ed. 126
- 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1533
Syllabus
<p>The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is défined and limited by statute; and, even if not questioned by either party, this court will, of its own motion, see to it that such jurisdiction is not exceeded.</p> <p>A.suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so as to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction on that ground, only when plaintiff's statement of his own cause is based thereon; that jurisdiction cannot be based, on an alleged anticipated defense which may be set up and which is invalid under some law, or provision, of the Constitution of the United States.</p> <p>The Circuit Court has no jurisdiction, in the absence of diverse citizenship, of a suit brought against a railroad corporation to enforce an alleged contract for an annual pass because, as stated in the bill, ' the refusal is based solely on the anti-pass provisions of the Hepburn Interstate Commerce Act of June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584.</p> <p>The practice in such cases is to reverse the judgment and remit the case to the Circuit Court with instructions to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that federal issues interposed as a defense generally do not create a cause of action “arising under” federal law
- holding that complaint may not invoke federal jurisdiction by embodying a reply to an anticipated federal defense
- holding that subject-matter jurisdiction must exist in the plaintiffs original cause of action, regardless of the likelihood that a federal question will arise in the course of litigation
- holding that “plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action” is what determines jurisdiction
- holding that subject-matter jurisdiction must exist in the plaintiff's original cause of action, regardless of the likelihood that a federal question will arise during litigation
- holding that federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is necessarily raised on the face of a well-pleaded complaint
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Moody
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.