Lovell v. Newman & Son
Citations
- 227 U.S. 412
- 33 S. Ct. 375
- 57 L. Ed. 577
- 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2314
Syllabus
<p>Where the jurisdiction of the Federal court of a suit brought by a trustee in bankruptcy rests upon diverse citizenship alone the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final; if, however, the petition also discloses as an additional ground of jurisdiction that the case arises under the laws of the United States, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is not final but can be reviewed by this court.</p> <p>Whether the- case is one arising under the laws of the United States must be determined upon the statements in the petition itself and not upon questions subsequently arising in the progress of the case. Macfadden v. United States, 213 U.'S. 288.</p> <p>Section 23 of the Bankruptcy Act as amended by the act of February 5, 1903, conferring jurisdiction on the Circuit Courts of certain classes of cases was not intended to increase the jurisdiction of those courts in bankruptcy matters but rather to limit it to the'classes of cases over which those courts are given jurisdiction by the acts creating them.</p> <p>Whether the Federal court had jurisdiction on grounds other than diverse citizenship müst be determined from Complainants? own statement as set forth in the bill affirmatively and distinctly, regardless of questions subsequently arising; grounds of jurisdiction may not be inferred argumentatively.</p> <p>A suit to enforce a right which takes its origin in the laws of the United States is not necessarily, or for that reason alone, one arising under those laws. There must be a controversy respecting the validity, construction or effect of such a law upon the determination of which the result depends.</p> <p>Where a trustee in bankruptcy sues in the Federal court on the ground that the property, or bond representing the value thereof, belonged to the bankrupt, and diverse citizenship exists, the suit does not depend upon the validity, construction or effect of any law of the United States, and the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final.</p
Judges: Day
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
31 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co.Supreme Court· 1908-11-30· cited 623×
- National Mutual Insurance v. Tidewater Transfer Co.Supreme Court· 1949-10-10· cited 328×
- Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. FoxSupreme Court· 1924-04-07· cited 304×
- Schumacher v. BeelerSupreme Court· 1934-12-17· cited 107×
- Central Republic Bank & Trust Co. v. CaldwellEighth Circuit· 1932-04-22· cited 56×
- Toledo Fence & Post Co. v. LyonsSixth Circuit· 1923-06-06· cited 17×
- Operators' Piano Co. v. First Wisconsin Trust Co.Seventh Circuit· 1922-09-26· cited 16×
- In re Patterson-MacDonald Shipbuilding Co.W.D. Washington· 1922-09-18· cited 16×
- Stiefel v. 14th Street & Broadway Realty CorporationSecond Circuit· 1931-04-06· cited 13×
- American Surety Co. of NY v. ShulzSupreme Court· 1915-04-05· cited 11×
- Childs v. Ultramares CorporationSecond Circuit· 1930-02-17· cited 11×
- Omaha Electric Light & Power Co. v. City of OmahaSupreme Court· 1913-06-16· cited 9×
- Weiland v. Pioneer Irrigation Co.Supreme Court· 1922-06-05· cited 9×
- McMillan Contracting Co. v. AbernathySupreme Court· 1924-01-07· cited 9×
- De Friece v. BryantE.D. Kentucky· 1916-04-12· cited 9×
- Whitman v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.D. Minnesota· 1947-01-29· cited 6×
- State v. ElliottSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1920-04-09· cited 6×
- In re Hammond Standish & Co.E.D. Michigan· 1954-12-02· cited 6×
- Wilkinson v. WalkerN.D. Texas· 1923-09-15· cited 6×
- Seven Springs Apartments, Phase II v. Calmare Assets (In Re Seven Springs Apartments, Phase II)N.D. Georgia· 1983-11-15· cited 5×
Cites
19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Shulthis v. McDougalSupreme Court· 1912-06-07· cited 424×
- Tennessee v. Union & Planters' BankSupreme Court· 1894-03-19· cited 409×
- Bardes v. Hawarden BankSupreme Court· 1900-05-21· cited 382×
- Hewit v. Berlin MacHine WorksSupreme Court· 1904-05-16· cited 199×
- Babbitt v. DutcherSupreme Court· 1910-02-21· cited 165×
- Montana Catholic Missions v. Missoula CountySupreme Court· 1906-01-02· cited 64×
- Knapp v. Milwaukee Trust Co.Supreme Court· 1910-03-07· cited 62×
- Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Co. v. TurckSupreme Court· 1893-11-06· cited 57×
- MacFadden v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1909-04-19· cited 48×
- Tefft, Weller & Co. v. MunsuriSupreme Court· 1911-12-04· cited 43×
- Bush v. ElliottSupreme Court· 1906-05-28· cited 42×
- Mountain View Mining & Milling Co. v. McFaddenSupreme Court· 1901-03-25· cited 39×
- ElkusSupreme Court· 1910-02-21· cited 29×
- Missouri v. NebraskaSupreme Court· 1905-03-06· cited 19×
- Watkins v. American National BankSupreme Court· 1905-10-16· cited 19×
- Mobile Transportation Co. v. City of MobileSupreme Court· 1905-12-11· cited 15×
- Warder v. CottonSupreme Court· 1907-11-18· cited 2×
- Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co. v. Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co.Supreme Court· 1906-01-08· cited 1×
- Russell v. RussellSupreme Court· 1906-01-15· cited 1×
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.