10. To review cases certified in which question of jurisdiction alone in-
volved.
Under § 5 of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, this court
has jurisdiction to review cases certified in which the question of
jurisdiction is alone involved and under the power conferred by that
statute can reverse the court below, when clearly wrong, even upon
questions of fact. Commercial Mutual Accident Co. v. Davis, 245.
11. Review of finding of facts made by Supreme Court of Philippine Is-
lands. Section 10 of act of July 1, 1902.
Although there is no technical finding of facts by the court of first in-
stance of the Philippine Islands, if the opinion shows the facts on
which the judgment is based and the courts below differ in regard
thereto they may be reviewed by this court under § 10 of the act of
July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stat. 691. (De la Rama v. De la Rama, 201
U. S. 303.) Strong v. Repide, 419.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 3;
CERTIORARI, 3;
MANDAMUS, 1, 2.
B. OF CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
Appellate jurisdiction under § 6 of act of 1891; effect of right of direct ap-
peal to this court.
The Circuit Court of Appeals does not lose its jurisdiction of an appeal
under § 6 of the act of 1891 because questions were involved which
would have warranted a direct appeal to this court under § 5 of that
act. Macfadden v. United States, 288.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 3;
BANKRUPTCY, 3.
C. OF CIRCUIT COURTS.
1. Rule of court inconsistent with statute, void.
The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is fixed by statute, and a rule of
court inconsistent with the statute is invalid.
v. Gibson, 10.
2. Of action of material-man claiming under act of August 13, 1894.
As the act of August 13, 1894, c. 280, 28 Stat. 278, does not specify in
which Federal court the action of a material-man claiming rights
thereunder must be brought, the question of jurisdiction is settled
by the general statutory provisions relating thereto; and, under the
act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, 24 Stat. 552, as corrected by the act
of August 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 433, a suit cannot be main-
tained in a district where the defendants do not reside. Ib.
3. Special appearance for purpose of objection to-Validity of rule con-
verting special into general appearance.
A defendant, having a statutory right to appear specially and object to
the jurisdiction and the right to appeal to this court if the objection
be overruled, cannot be compelled by a rule of court to waive the
objection and appear generally; and Rule 22 of the Circuit Court
of the United States for the Ninth Circuit requiring a general ap-
pearance if the Circuit Court overrule such objection is inconsistent
with 8918, Rev. Stat., and therefore invalid. Ib.
4. Effect of Federal question being merely colorable and of omission to
decide it, or deciding it against party claiming.
Where the Federal questions raised by the bill are not merely colorable
but are raised in good faith and not in a fraudulent attempt to give
jurisdiction to the Circuit Court, that court has jurisdiction, and
can decide the case on local or state questions only, and it will not
lose its jurisdiction of the case by omitting to decide the Federal
questions or deciding them adversely to the party claiming their
benefit. Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 175.
5. Sufficiency of involution of Federal question.
Where the bill not only alleges that the statute creating the commission,
but also the order of the commission sought to be enjoined, de-
prives complainant of its property without due process of law, and
also violates other provisions of the Constitution, the Circuit Court
obtains jurisdiction without reference to the particular violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Barney v. City of New York, 190
U. S. 430, distinguished. Ib.
6. To determine removability of cause-Protection of furisdiction-Inter-
ference by state court.
The United States Circuit Court has jurisdiction to determine for itself
the removability of a cause and may take jurisdiction thereof and
protect such jurisdiction even though the state court refuse to make
the removal order; and a final judgment, rendered by and under
such conditions by the Circuit Court, cannot be reviewed by the
state court, but such judgment is binding on the state court until
reversed by this court. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. McCabe, 207.
While a petitioner, if the state court denies his petition for removal,
may remain in that court and bring the case here for review on writ
of error after final judgment, he is not obliged so to do, but may file
the record in the Circuit Court, and that court has jurisdiction
to determine the question of removability and, notwithstanding
§ 720, Rev. Stat., it may protect its jurisdiction by injunction
against further proceedings in the state court. (Traction Co. v.
Mining Co., 196 U. S. 239.) Ib.
A judgment rendered by the Circuit Court under such conditions is
not void even if jurisdiction be improperly assumed and retained,
as the jurisdictional question can be reviewed by this court, and,
until reversed, the judgment is binding on the state court and can-
not be treated as a nullity. (Dowell v. Appelgate, 152 U. S. 327.)
9. When suit one arising under Constitution and laws of United States.
Showing by plaintiff essential.
A suit only arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States
within the meaning of § 1 of the act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, 25
Stat. 433, conferring jurisdiction on the Circuit Court when the
plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is
based on those laws or that Constitution, and it is not enough that
defendant may base his defense thereon. (Louisville & Nashville
Railroad v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149.) In re Winn, 458.
10. Effect of general appearance as waiver of objection to jurisdiction.
While a general appearance in the Circuit Court after removal may
amount to a waiver of objection to the jurisdiction if some Circuit
Court has jurisdiction of the cause, In re Moore, 209 U. S. 490,
neither appearance nor consent can confer jurisdiction where no
Circuit Court has jurisdiction of the controversy. (Ex parte Wisner,
203 U. S. 449.) Ib.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 3;
REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
Citizenship for purposes of-District Court for Porto Rico-Corporation
organized under laws of Spain.
All relations between Spain and Porto Rico having been severed by the
cession of that Territory by the Treaty of Paris, a corporation
organized under the laws of Spain for purely local and charitable
purposes in Porto Rico is not to be regarded as a citizen of Spain
within the meaning of the provisions of the act of April 12, 1900,
c. 191, 31 Stat. 77, as amended by the act of March 2, 1901, c. 812.
31 Stat. 953, relating to the jurisdiction of the District Court of the
United States for Porto Rico, nor is such a corporation a citizen of
the United States within the meaning of such provision; if it is a
citizen of any country it is a citizen of Porto Rico. Martinez v.
La Asociacion de Senoras, 20.
1. Over foreign corporations; doing of business within State essential.
In order for a state court to obtain jurisdiction over a foreign corpora-
tion having neither property nor agent within a State it is essential
for the corporation to be doing business in the State. Commercial
Mutual Accident Co. v. Davis, 245.
2. Of suit against foreign corporation-What constitutes doing of business
within State for purpose of.
An insurance company with outstanding policies in a State on which
it collects premiums and adjusts losses held, in this case, to be doing
business within that State, so as to render it liable to an action, and
that service, according to the law of the State, on a doctor sent to
investigate the loss and having power to adjust the same is suffi-
cient to give the state court jurisdiction. Ib.
1. Of States and Territories; limitation of jurisdiction.
No State or Territory can pass laws having force or effect over persons
or property beyond its jurisdiction. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Ry. Co. v. Sowers, 55.
2. Effect of statute of Territory where cause of action arises, requiring such
actions to be brought in the courts thereof, on jurisdiction of action by
other court.
A court that only permits a recovery on a cause of action on plaintiff's
showing compliance with the conditions imposed by a statute of
the Territory in which the cause arose has given to that statute the
observance required under § 906, Rev. Stat., and if the action is
one otherwise controlled by common-law principles its jurisdiction
is not defeated because such statute requires actions of that nature
to be brought in the courts of the Territory. Ib.
3. Effect of appearance to object to jurisdiction and for removal.
Where the defendant makes no appearance in the state court or in the
Circuit Court except for the purpose of raising the question of juris-
diction and removing the case to the Federal court, such proceed-
ings do not amount to a general appearance. Commercial Mutual
1. Determination of character of act as lawful or unlawful.
While a country may treat some relations between its own citizens as
governed by its own law in regions subject to no sovereign, like the
high seas, or to no law recognized as adequate, the general rule is
that the character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be deter-
mined wholly by the law of the country where it is done. American
Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 347.
2. Effect of conspiracy in one country to do acts in another.
A conspiracy in this country to do acts in another jurisdiction does not
draw to itself those acts and make them unlawful if they are per-
mitted by the local law. Ib.
|