Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Filhiol v. Maurice

Filhiol v. Maurice, 185 U.S. 108 (1902)

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1902-04-07
Topic: general

Me. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court. Writs of error may be sued out directly frpm this court to the Circuit Courts in cases in which the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States is involved ; or in which the validity or construction of any treaty made under the authority.of the United States is drawn in question. Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 826. And we repeat, as has often been said before, that a case may be said to involve the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States when a title, right, privilege or immunity is claimed under that instrument, but a definite issue in respect to the possession of the right must be distinctly deducible from the record before the judgment of the court below can be revised on the ground of error in the disposal of such a claim by its decision.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Filhiol v. Maurice. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 15 opinions

Headnotes

Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction Under Constitution or Treaties A case involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States, or the validity or construction of a treaty, only where a title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under that instrument and a definite issue respecting the possession of that right is distinctly deducible from the record; the same rule applies to treaties, and some right, title, privilege, or immunity dependent on the treaty must be so set up or claimed as to require the court to pass on the question of validity or construction in disposing of the asserted right. 185 U.S. at 113–114
Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts (Arising Under Laws) In order to give a Circuit Court jurisdiction of a case as one arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, it must appear from the plaintiff's own statement of his claim that the case does so arise. 185 U.S. at 114
Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in Ejectment Against Private Individuals In an action of ejectment against private individuals, jurisdiction of a Circuit Court cannot be maintained on the ground that the case arises under the Constitution or a treaty merely because the complaint avers that the plaintiffs were ousted in violation of the treaty of October 21, 1803, and of the Fifth Amendment — provisions it was the duty of the Federal Government to observe — where no right, title, privilege, or immunity derived from the Constitution or treaty is asserted against the private defendants and the plaintiffs set up no more than a wrongful ouster remediable in the ordinary course in the proper tribunals. 185 U.S. at 114–115
Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Federal Question Jurisdiction A suit against mere private persons for a wrongful ouster does not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States where the action is not against the United States and it is not charged that the defendants took possession by direction of the Government. 185 U.S. at 115

FILHIOLv. MAURICE,185 U.S. 108(1902)

22 S.Ct. 560

FILHIOLv. MAURICE.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

ARKANSAS.

No. 50.

Argued March 5, 6, 1902.

Decided April 7, 1902.

In an action of ejectment against private individuals, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court cannot be maintained on the ground that by averments that plaintiffs were ousted in violation of the treaty of October 21, 1803, and of the Fifth Amendment, the provisions of which it was the duty of the Federal Government to observe, it appeared that the case arose under the Constitution, or laws, or treaties of the United States.

THIS was an action of ejectment brought by Hippolite Filhiol

and others, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, against Charles E. Maurice, Charles

G. Convers and William G. Maurice, for the recovery of a parcel

of land in the city of Hot Springs, Garland County, Arkansas, on

the permanent reservation at Hot Springs, described

Page 109

as Bath house site No. 8, and for rent thereof as damages.

Plaintiffs deraigned title as heirs at law of Don Juan Filhiol,

to whom it was alleged the lands were granted February 22, 1788,

by the then Spanish governor of the province of Louisiana, by

virtue of which grant said Filhiol became the owner of a tract of

"about three miles square, embracing all the hot springs in the

city of Hot Springs, Garland County, Arkansas," and including the

parcel of land for which plaintiffs brought suit. The complaint

did not aver the citizenship of plaintiffs or defendants,

although the caption described plaintiffs as residents of several

States other than Arkansas, but it was averred as follows: "And

for cause of action say that by the Fifth Amendment of the

Constitution of the United States and the third article of the

treaty of the United States of America and the Republic of

France, which was ratified on the 21st day of October, 1803, the

United States undertook and agreed to maintain the said Don Juan

Filhiol and his heirs in their right and title to the land in

controversy and their full enjoyment of the same, but, in

violation of the provisions of said treaty and without due

process of law and in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the

Constitution of the United States, defendants did, without

condemnation and without compensation to plaintiffs, on or about

the second day of January, 1897, wrongfully and without right,

oust the plaintiffs from the possession of the land in

controversy, and for more than two years last past have held

possession and they now hold possession of the land in

controversy wrongfully and without right, and they refuse to

surrender possession of the same to plaintiffs." Defendants

demurred to the complaint, on the ground that its allegations did

not "constitute a cause of action."

The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer, and plaintiffs

electing to stand on their complaint and declining to amend, the

complaint was dismissed with costs. A writ of error directly from

this court was then allowed.

Mr. William F. VilasandMr. Clifford S. Waltonfor plaintiffs in error.Mr. J.H. McGowanwas on their brief.Mr.Branch K. Millerfiled a brief for same.Page 110Mr. Assistant Attorney General Pradtfor defendants in error.Mr. George H. Gormanwas on his brief.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

Writs of error may be sued out directly from this court to the Circuit Courts in cases in which the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States is involved; or in which the validity or construction of any treaty made under the authority of the United States is drawn in question. Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5,26 Stat. 826.

And we repeat, as has often been said before, that a case may be said to involve the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States when a title, right, privilege or immunity is claimed under that instrument, but a definite issue in respect to the possession of the right must be distinctly deducible from the record before the judgment of the court below can be revised on the ground of error in the disposal of such a claim by its decision. The same rule is applicable in respect of the validity or construction of a treaty. Some right, title, privilege or immunity dependent on the treaty must be so set up or claimed as to require the Circuit Court to pass on the question of the validity or construction in disposing of the right asserted.Musev.Arlington Hotel Company,168 U.S. 430, and cases cited.

The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was not invoked in this case on the ground of diverse citizenship, but on the ground that the case arose "under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority." And it is settled that in order to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction of a case as so arising, that it does so arise must appear from the plaintiff's own statement of his claim.

As the Circuit Court took jurisdiction, which could only have been on the latter ground, and decided the case upon the merits, the writ of error was properly taken directly to this court, the jurisdiction of which is exclusive in such cases.HuguleyManufacturing Companyv.Galeton Cotton Mills,184 U.S. 290;American Sugar Companyv.New Orleans,181 U.S. 277.

We are met, however, on the threshold with the question whether the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court could be maintainedPage 111on that ground. It does not appear that this question was raised below, and, on the contrary, the Circuit Court disposed of the case on the merits, that is, assuming jurisdiction, the Circuit Court decided that the complaint failed to set up a cause of action.

Did it appear from plaintiffs' own statement that the case arose under the Constitution or a treaty of the United States? We do not think it did.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the exercise of Federal power to deprive any person of property without due process of law, or to take private property for public use without just compensation; and the treaty of October 21, 1803, provided for the protection of the inhabitants of the territory ceded in the enjoyment of their property. Public Treaties, 200.

But no right, title, privilege or immunity was here asserted as derived from the Constitution or the treaty, as against these private individuals, who were impleaded as defendants, either specifically, or through averments that plaintiffs were ousted in violation of the treaty and of the Fifth Amendment, the provisions of which it was the duty of the Federal Government to observe.

The gravamen of the complaint was that plaintiffs' ancestor had a perfect title, to which they had succeeded, and the appropriate remedy for illegal invasion of the right of possession was sought, but it was not made to appear that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, for the action was not against the United States, nor could it have been, as the United States had not consented to be so sued, and so far as defendants were concerned, it was not charged that they took possession by direction of the Government, and plaintiffs set up no more than a wrongful ouster by merely private persons, remediable in the ordinary course, and in the proper tribunals. And seeArkansasv.Coal Company,183 U.S. 185;Musev.Arlington HotelCompany,168 U.S. 430.

The particular grounds of the decision of the Circuit Court on the merits do not appear, nor is it material, as that court manifestly had no jurisdiction.Judgment reversed and cause remanded with a direction todismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction with costs.Page 112