Shulthis v. McDougal

Syllabus

<p>Where a petition of intervention is entertained and disposed of in virtue of jurisdiction already invoked, if the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final in respect of the original suit, it is equally so in respect of the intervention.</p> <p>Whether jurisdiction depends alone on diverse citizenship or on other grounds as well, must be determined from complainant’s own statement, in the bill of his cause of action, regardless of what may be brought into the suit by answer or in subsequent proceedings.</p> <p>Jurisdiction of the Federal court can only rest on grounds distinctly and affirmatively set forth; grounds of jurisdiction, other than those of diverse citizenship alleged, cannot be inferred argumentatively from statements in the bill.</p> <p>A case is not one arising under the laws of the United States unless it ■ really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction or cifcct of such a law upon the determination whereof the result depends. This rule applies peculiarly to suits respecting rights to land acquired under laws of the United States; otherwise all suits to establish title to land which had been part of the public domain would be cognizable in the Federal courts.</p> <p>The fact that the controversy might have arisen under the laws of the United States does not give the Federal court jurisdiction, if the bill does not allege the facts in that particular, and the controversy might have arisen in another way independent of those laws.</p> <p>A corporation which was organized in the Indian Territory while the statutes of Arkansas were, under authority of Congress, in force in that Territory is not for that reason a Federal corporation, but is to be regarded for jurisdictional purposes as one of Oklahoma. Kansas Pacific B. B. Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa F6 B. B. Co., 112 U ' S. 414.</p> <p>The action of Congress in putting the laws of Arkansas in force in the Indian Territory by the act of Februar