As the court below filed no opinion, we are not distinctly informed upon which of the several grounds alleged the court proceeded in dismissing the cause for want of jurisdiction, and therefore it will be necessary for this court to consider each and all of them.
First, then, does the record disclose that the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars? The allegation in the complaint is "that the amount in dispute in this cause exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of two thousand dollars;" and it is also made to appear that the matter in dispute is the title to a mining claim, for which, and for damages and expenses amounting to thirteen hundred dollars, the plaintiff demands judgment. The defendants did not think fit to traverse these allegations, but moved to dismiss on the face of the complaint. Upon such a motion, as upon a demurrer, a court will not incline to dismiss for want of jurisdiction unless the facts appearing of record create a legal certainty of that conclusion. Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U.S. 550; Wetmore v. Rymer, 169 U.S. 115. We are not impressed by the criticism that the amount, instead of the matter, in dispute is alleged to have exceeded two thousand dollars. The meaning of such an allegation is clear, and in the absence of any traverse thereof, and of any pretence that, in point of fact, the matter in dispute did not exceed the sum or value of two thousand dollars, we think that the record fairly imports the necessary jurisdictional amount.
The next contention, that the Circuit Court could not take jurisdiction because the record did not disclose that the controversy was between citizens of different States, seems to us to have been well founded. The complaint alleged that Stratton, one of the defendants, was a citizen of the same State as the plaintiff. Not only was Stratton named as a party defendant in the complaint, but a summons was sued out against him as such; and the motion to dismiss the complaint was made
It is, however, argued that, as it is alleged in the complaint that Stratton had conveyed by deed his interest in the mining claim to the Portland Gold Mining Company, Stratton was a nominal party only, whose presence on the record would not defeat the jurisdiction of the court as between the other parties; and cases are cited in which it has been held that the jurisdiction of the Federal courts will not be defeated by the mere joinder or non-joinder of formal parties. Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421; Wood v. Davis, 18 How. 467; Walden v. Skinner, 101 U.S. 577.
But considering the nature of the suit and the relief sought thereby, we are not prepared to hold that Stratton was a purely formal and unnecessary party. It is clear, from the provisions of sections 2325 and 2326, Revised Statutes, that they contemplate a controversy between an applicant for a patent and an adverse claimant. Under the first of these sections Stratton, as the complaint shows, made personal application in the United States land office at Pueblo for a patent.
In order, therefore, that a controversy could arise under these sections, Stratton must have complied with the provisions of section 2325 by having located a piece of land and by having filed in the land office an application under oath for a patent, showing compliance, together with a plat and field notes of the claim, made by or under the direction of the United States surveyor general, showing accurately the boundaries of the claim, which shall be distinctly marked by monuments on the ground, and by having posted a copy of such plat, together with a notice of such application for a patent, in a conspicuous place on the land embraced in such plat previous to the filing of the application for a patent, and by filing an affidavit of at least two persons that such notice has been duly posted, and by filing a copy of the notice in the land office.
It is quite evident, under these provisions and the allegations of the complaint, that, when Blackburn desired to file an adverse claim, he was informed by the proceedings in the
Nevertheless, even if the Circuit Court could not take jurisdiction of the case because the controversy was not between citizens of different States, it is claimed that the court had jurisdiction because an adverse suit, or suit brought in support of a protest and adverse claim, under the provisions of sections 2325 and 2326 of the Revised Statutes, is a suit arising under the laws of the United States in such a sense as to confer jurisdiction on a Federal court, regardless of the citizenship of the parties.
This presents an important question, one that has been differently answered in the lower courts which have been called upon to decide it. Burke v. The Bunker Hill Man. Co., 46 Fed. Rep. 644; Trafton v. Nouges, 4 Sawyer, 178; Rutter v. Shoshone Mining Co., 75 Fed. Rep. 37; Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 59 U.S. App. 538.
It may be well to quote in full the language of the sections in question:
"SEC. 2325. A patent for any land claimed and located for valuable deposits may be obtained in the following manner: Any person, association or corporation authorized to locate a claim under this chapter, having claimed and located a piece of land for such purposes, who has, or have, complied with the terms of this chapter, may file in the proper land office an application for a patent, under oath, showing such compliance, together with a plat and field notes of the claim or claims in common, made by or under the direction of the United States
"SEC. 2326. Where an adverse claim is filed during the period of publication, it shall be upon oath of the person or persons making the same, and shall show the nature, boundaries
The first observation to be made is that Congress did not intend to prescribe jurisdiction in any particular court, state or Federal. "It shall be the duty of the adverse claimant, within thirty days after filing his claim, to commence proceedings
The natural inference from this language is that the competency of the adjudicating court was not to be determined by the mere fact that the mining claims in controversy consisted of lands the title to which was in the United States. If that fact alone were to be decisive no other than a Federal court would have been mentioned. We think the intention of Congress, in this legislation, was to leave open to suitors all courts competent to determine the question of the right of possession. If the parties to the controversy were citizens of different States, and if the matter in dispute exceeded the sum or value of two thousand dollars, then the claimant might elect to commence proceedings in a Federal or in a state court, because either would be competent to determine the question of the right of possession. But if the usual conditions of Federal jurisdiction did not exist, that is, if there was no adverse citizenship, and if the matter in dispute did not exceed two thousand dollars, then the party claimant could proceed in a state court.
This court has frequently been vainly asked to hold that controversies in respect to lands, one of the parties to which had derived his title directly under an act of Congress, for that reason alone presented a Federal question. Thus, in Romie v. Casanova, 91 U.S. 379, which was an action brought to recover the possession of certain lands in the city of San Jose, the question to be determined was, which of two parties had actually obtained a grant of the particular premises in question. The title of the city had originated before the cession of California to the United States. But this court said: "The title of the city was not questioned. Even if it depended upon the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the several acts of Congress to ascertain and settle private land claims in California, the case would not be different. Both parties admit that title, and their litigation extends only to the determination of the rights which they have severally acquired under it." Accordingly the writ of error to the Supreme Court of California was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Gold Washing and Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U.S. 199, was a suit in equity in a state court of California, and brought on petition into the Circuit Court of the United States on the allegation that its determination involved the construction of certain laws of the United States affecting rights in public and mineral lands. The Circuit Court remanded the case to the state court on the ground that no real or substantial controversy, properly within the jurisdiction of a Federal court, appeared to be involved. That judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed by this court in an opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Waite, a portion of which was as follows:
"The attempt to transfer this cause was made under that part of section 2 of the act of 1875, which provides for the removal of suits `arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.' In the language of Chief Justice Marshall, a case `may truly be said to arise under the Constitution or a law of the United States whenever its correct decision depends upon the construction of either.' Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 379. Or when `the title or right set up by the party may be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or law of the United States, or sustained by the opposite construction.' Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 822.
* * * * *
"In this petition the defendants set forth their ownership, by title derived under the laws of the United States, of certain valuable mines, that can only be worked by the hydraulic process, which necessarily requires the use of the
What is meant by the provision in section 2326, that the question of the right of possession should be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, was thus spoken of in Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U.S. 350:
"It is apparent that the statute requires a judicial proceeding in a competent court. What is a competent court is not specifically stated, but it undoubtedly means a court of general jurisdiction, whether it be a state court or a Federal court; and, as the very essence of the trial is to determine rights by a regular procedure in such court, after the usual methods, which rights are dependent upon the laws of the United States, we see no reason why, if the amount in controversy is
This statement is not inconsistent with the cases herein previously cited, as the right to review the judgment of a state court is said to be limited to a proper case having been made, clearly implying that some Federal question should be involved, and that a mere controversy as to the right of possession would not make such a proper case; for otherwise every case arising under section 2326 would be a proper case.
In Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Campbell, 135 U.S. 286, 299, Mr. Justice Miller in discussing the scope of these sections, said:
"It is true that there are no very distinctive words declaring what kind of adverse claim is required to be set up as a defence against the party making publication; but throughout the whole of these sections and the original statute from which they were transferred to the Revised Statutes, the words `claim' and `claimant' are used. This word is, in all legislation of Congress on the subject, used in regard to a claim not yet perfected by a title from the Government by way of a patent. And the purpose of the statute seems to be that where there are two claimants to the same mine, neither of whom has yet acquired the title from the Government, they shall bring their respective claims to the same property, in the manner prescribed in the statute, before some judicial tribunal located in the neighborhood where the property is, and that the result of this judicial investigation shall govern the action of the officers of the land department in determining which of these claimants shall have the patent, the final evidence of title, from the Government."
The ruling in Bushnell v. Crooke Mining Co., 148 U.S. 682, is directly applicable to the present case. There a writ of error brought to this court a judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado. The suit was in ejectment brought by the Crooke Mining Company in a state court against Bushnell, to recover possession of a certain portion of the surface
Mr. Justice Jackson, in sustaining the motion to dismiss, said:
"It is plainly manifest that neither the pleadings nor the instructions given and refused present any Federal question, and an examination of the opinion of the Supreme Court affirming the action of the trial court as to instructions given, as well as to its refusal to give the instructions asked by the defendants below, fails to disclose the presence of any Federal question. It does not appear from the record that any right, privilege or immunity under the Constitution or laws of the United States was specially set up or claimed by the defendant
"The decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado in no way brought into question the validity or even construction of any Federal statute, and it certainly did not deny to the plaintiffs in error any right arising out of the construction of the Federal statutes. It was said by the Chief Justice, in Cook County v. Calumet & Chicago Canal Co., 138 U.S. 635, 653: `The validity of a statute is not drawn in question every time rights claimed under such statute are controverted, nor is the validity of an authority every time an act done by such authority is disputed.'"
Accordingly the writ of error to the Supreme Court of Colorado was dismissed.
The legal import of this decision plainly is that a controversy between rival claimants under sections 2325 and 2326 of the Revised Statutes may be properly determined by a state court, and that the judgment of a state Supreme Court, in such a case, cannot be reviewed by this court simply because the parties were claiming rights under the Federal statute.
Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Co. v. Turck, 150 U.S. 138, was brought to this court on a writ of error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. An action of ejectment by Turck against the mining company for possession of a certain lode mining claim had been tried in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado, and determined in the plaintiff's favor. The case was taken by a writ of error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the judgment was there affirmed, and thereupon a writ of error was allowed to this court. The case was here heard on a motion to dismiss on the ground that the suit was between citizens of different States, and that, therefore, under the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was final. An attempt was made in argument to sustain the right
While it is true that the conclusion reached was mainly put upon the ground that the record did not disclose affirmatively that any distinctive Federal question was involved, yet, as the record did disclose a controversy between claimants arising under a Federal mining statute, it is a necessary implication of the decision that that fact alone did not render the case one of which the Circuit Court could take jurisdiction irrespective of citizenship, but that other and apt allegations were required showing that the controversy was determinable by one of two conflicting constructions of the Federal statute, and not one of mere fact in which the validity of the statute was not drawn into question.
A similar principle was involved in Gillis v. Stinchfield, 159 U.S. 658. That was a suit brought in a state court of California and concerned the ownership of a mining claim. The case was brought to this court, and it was claimed that, as the question in dispute could only be determined by an application of sections 2322 and 2336 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, such a state of facts appearing by the record, there was disclosed a Federal question which, of itself, gave this court jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State. But a motion to dismiss the writ of error was allowed. It is true that this court put its judgment on the ground that the judgment of the state Supreme Court was based upon an estoppel, deemed by that court to operate against the plaintiff in error upon general principles of law, irrespective of any Federal question. Still the case is authority for the proposition that controversies in respect to titles derived under the mining laws of the United States may be legitimately determined in the state courts, and that to enable
In Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U.S. 408, it was held that the mere fact that the matter in controversy in an action is a sum of money received by one of the parties as an award under the treaty of the United States with a foreign power, providing for the submission of claims against that power to arbitration, does not in any way draw in question the validity or construction of that treaty, so as to confer jurisdiction on this court to review the judgment of a Circuit Court of the United States. In this case Gill v. Oliver, 11 How. 529, 545, was cited, in which a writ of error to the Court of Appeals of Maryland was dismissed because, although the matter in dispute was money derived under a treaty with Mexico, yet such a dispute did not involve any question as to the validity or construction of the treaty, Mr. Justice Grier saying: "Both parties claim money in court; and, in order to test the value of their respective assignments they introduce the history of the claim from its origin. The treaty and award are facts in that history. They were before the court, but as facts and not for construction. If A held land under a patent from the United States or a Spanish grant ratified by treaty, and his heirs or assignees dispute as to which have the best title under him, this does not make a case for the jurisdiction of this court under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act. If neither the validity nor the construction of the patent or title under the treaty is contested, if both parties claim under it, and the contest arises from some question without or dehors the patent or treaty, it is plainly no case for our interference under this section. That the title originated in such a patent or treaty is a fact in the history of the case incidental to it, but the essential controversy between the parties is without and beyond it."
It should not be overlooked that sections 2325 and 2326 form a part of a general scheme in reference to the mineral
Thus section 2319 enacts that "all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States."
Section 2324 provides that "the miners of each mining district may make regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, or with the laws of the State or Territory in which the district is situated, governing the location, manner of recording, amount of work necessary to hold possession of a mining claim," etc.
Section 2332 enacts that where claimants "have held and worked their claims for a period equal to the time prescribed by the statute of limitations for mining claims of the State or Territory where the same may be situated, evidence of such possession and working of the claims for such period shall be sufficient to establish a right to a patent thereto, under this chapter, in the absence of any adverse claim," etc.
Section 2339 provides that "whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same," etc.
Without undertaking to say that no cases can arise under this legislation which turn upon a disputed construction, and therefore presenting a question essentially Federal in its
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA dissented.
MR. JUSTICE BROWN did not sit in this case, and took no part in its decision.