People ex rel. Brady v. Brown's Valley Irr. Dist.

Citations

• 119 F. 535
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5341

Syllabus

<p>1. Removal of Causes—Federal Question—Quo Warranto Proceeding by State.</p> <p>An action in the nature of quo warranto to determine the right of an organization to exercise the functions and franchises of an irrigation district under the laws of California, in which the information of the attorney general recites the proceedings by virtue of which defendant claims to have been organized as an irrigation district, and charges that they were not in conformity to the laws of the state authorizing the organization of such districts, but were in violation of the same and of the constitution of the state, is not one arising under the constitution of the United States, and removable into a federal court on that ground, because it is also charged as a further ground of illegality that the acts of defendant were in violation of certain provisions of the federal constitution.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>Nor does an allegation in such information, in effect, that if the law of the state known as the “Wright Act,” under which the defendant was professedly organized, authorized the proceedings taken, such act was void, as in violation of the provisions of the constitution of the United States, state a controversy with respect to a federal question, which gives a federal court jurisdiction, since such question is only contingently involved; and, moreover, the Wright Act has been adjudged constitutional by the supreme court of the United States, and its constitutionality is therefore no longer a federal question.</p> <p>¶ 1. Jurisdiction in cases involving federal question, see notes to Bailey v. Mosher, 11 C. C. A. 308; Montana Ore Purchasing Co. v. Boston & M. Consol. Copper & Silver Min. Co., 35 C. C. A. 7.</p>