Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Bankers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Co.

Bankers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Ry. Co., 192 U.S. 371 (1904)

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1904-02-23
Topic: general

• Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,- after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. If the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court depended entirely on diversity of citizenship, the judgment of the Circuit Court-of Appeals was made final by the act of March 3, 1891, and this writ of error must be dismissed. But it is contended that jurisdiction also rested on the ground that the case arose under *381 the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that must be tested by the settled rule that a suit does not so arise unless it really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy as to the effect or construction of' the Constitution or some law or treaty of the United States, upon the determination of which the result depends, and which appears on the record by plaintiff’s own statement of his case in legal and logical form, such as is required in good pleading. Tennessee v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bankers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 29 opinions

BANKERS CASUALTY CO.v. MINN. ST. P. c. RY.,192 U.S. 371(1904)

24 S.Ct. 325

BANKERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANYv. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL AND SAULT SAINTE

MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

No. 141.

Argued January 22, 1904.

Decided February 23, 1904.

Although suits may involve the Constitution or laws of the United States, they are not suits arising thereunder where they do not turn on a controversy between the parties in regard to the operation thereof, on the facts. Nor does a case arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States unless it appears from plaintiff's own statement, in the outset, that some title, right, privilege or immunity on which recovery depends will be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or laws of the United States or sustained by the opposite construction.Page 372In an action commenced in the Circuit Court, by a citizen of one State against a railroad company, citizen of another State, for damages for a loss of a registered mail package, where the plaintiff relied on principles of general law applicable to negligence and to the liability of defendant if there was negligence, the fact that the suit involved the relations of the Railroad Company to the government did not put in controversy the construction of any provision of the Constitution or of any law of the United States on which the recovery depended and the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was final and the writ of error is dismissed.

THIS action was originally brought in the Circuit Court of the

United States for the District of Minnesota by the German State

Bank of Harvey, North Dakota, for which the Bankers Mutual

Casualty Company of Iowa was subsequently substituted as

plaintiff, against the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Sainte

Marie Railway Company of Minnesota. The averments gave

jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship. A

demurrer to the original complaint was sustained for reasons

stated by Lochren, J. 113 F. 414. Thereupon "an amended

and substituted complaint" was filed, and on demurrer judgment

was rendered in favor of defendant, and affirmed on error by the

Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

117 F. 434. This writ or error was then allowed.

The amended complaint was as follows:

"That the Bankers Mutual Casualty Company, during all of the

year A.D. 1900, and up to the present time, is and was a

corporation, duly organized under the laws of the State of Iowa,

and a citizen of said State, with its principal place of business

at Des Moines, in said State, engaged in the business of insuring

banks against loss from robbery and burglary, including the

insurance against loss of packages of money, while in the course

of transmission from place to place, while regularly carried in

the United States registered mails.

"That defendant, during all of the year A.D. 1900, and up to

the present time, is and was a corporation, duly organized under

the laws of the State of Minnesota and a citizen of said State,

with its principal place of business at Minneapolis, in

Page 373

said State, engaged in operating a line of railroad situated in

the States of Minnesota and North Dakota.

"That the German State Bank, during all of the year A.D. 1900,

and up to the present time, is and was a corporation, duly

organized under the laws of the State of North Dakota, and a

citizen of said State, with its principal place of business at

the town of Harvey, in said State, engaged in a general banking

business at said town.

"That during the whole year A.D. 1900, and up to the present

time, defendant is and was engaged in carrying the United States

mails between the terminal and intermediate stations located upon

and along its said line of railroad, under and by virtue of the

statutes and laws of the United States, and the regulations

established by the Post Office Department of the United States

government, and in pursuance of a fixing of the compensation to

be paid to defendant by the United States government for carrying

said mails and the person in charge thereof, based upon the last

preceding reweighing of said mails and upon notice in writing, in

the usual form, from the Second Assistant Postmaster General of

the United States, requiring defendant to carry said mails and

the person in charge thereof.

"That said depot, at or near the town of Harvey, was an

intermediate station on that part of defendant's said line of

railroad within the State of North Dakota, which extends from the

station at Hankinson to the station at Portal, and the railroad

line between said stations at Hankinson and Portal is designated

by and known to the Post Office Department of the United States,

as railroad route No. 161,018, being a distance of 344.58 miles,

and the compensation fixed by the United States Post Office

Department to be paid annually by the United States to defendant

during all of the period herein referred to for the carriage of

said mails and the person in charge thereof is and was the sum of

sixty-four thousand eight hundred and fifteen and 49-100 dollars

($64,815.49), at the rate of $188.10 per mile.

Page 374

"That this substituted plaintiff is not in possession of the

aforesaid notice to defendant, and is unable to attach to this

petition said notice or a true copy thereof.

"That during all of the period hereinbefore referred to there

was no contract of any kind between defendant and the United

States government concerning or providing for the carriage, by

defendant, of said mails, or any part thereof, or of the person

in charge of said mails, upon or along defendant's said line of

railway or any part thereof.

"That on or about the 10th day of November, A.D. 1900, the

Metropolitan Bank, a corporation organized under the laws of the

State of Minnesota, was engaged in transacting a general banking

business in the city of Minneapolis, in said State, and on or

about said date said bank deposited in the United States mails,

at Minneapolis, in said State, a package containing lawful money

of the United States, commonly known and called currency, of the

actual cash value of three thousand dollars ($3000.00), in an

envelope properly addressed to the German State Bank at Harvey,

North Dakota, and prepaid thereon the postage and registration

fee, and said package was thereupon duly registered by the

postmaster of said post office. That from and after the time of

depositing said package in said post office at Minneapolis, said

package and its contents was the property of said German State

Bank.

"That said registered package was covered by insurance and

indemnity against loss while in transit through the United States

mails from Minneapolis to said Harvey, under a policy of

insurance issued by said Bankers Mutual Casualty Company, the

substituted plaintiff, said insurance being for the use and

benefit of said German State Bank. That a true copy of said

policy is hereto attached as part hereof, and marked Exhibit `A.'

"That on or about November 10th, A.D. 1900, and while said

package was in good safety and prior to the departure of the

train carrying said registered package, said Metropolitan Bank

deposited in the United States mails, at the post office

Page 375

in said city of Minneapolis, a letter of advice, properly

addressed to said Bankers Mutual Casualty Company at Des Moines,

Iowa, with postage thereon prepaid; that said letter of advice

notified said Bankers Mutual Casualty Company, of the shipment by

said Metropolitan Bank of said sum of three thousand dollars to

said German State Bank of Harvey, and upon said mailing of said

letter of advice, the contract of insurance and indemnity of said

registered package of currency immediately attached thereto and

became a valid and complete contract of insurance and indemnity

by the said Bankers Mutual Casualty Company, in favor of said

German State Bank.

"That in the regular course of transmission of the United

States mails between the said city of Minneapolis and the said

town of Harvey, said registered package was duly delivered by the

post office officials of said city of Minneapolis to the railway

mail clerk or other proper postal official, and placed in a

railway mail car or other proper car, the property of defendant,

then standing upon defendant's said line of railway, and was

transported by defendant railway company to defendant's railway

depot or station, situated in or near said town of Harvey, North

Dakota.

"That prior to the arrival of said registered package at said

town of Harvey, the same, together with other registered mail

packages and other mail matter, was, by said railway mail clerk

in charge of said mails, duly inclosed in a regular United States

mail sack or mail pouch, which said mail sack or mail pouch was

securely locked or fastened by the official government strap and

lock.

"That from and after the time of the depositing of the mail

sack containing said currency in defendant's mail car at

Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the purpose of transit and

transportation for delivery at Harvey, North Dakota, the same was

under the exclusive care, custody and control of the postal

clerks, regularly employed by the United States government and in

charge of the mail in said car; that the mail sacks containing

Page 376

said registered package, from and after the time of its delivery

in said postal car, to the proper postal clerks therein, up to

and including the delivery of said mail sack at Harvey, North

Dakota, was in the exclusive care, custody and control of the

said postal clerks or authorities.

"That upon the arrival of defendant's said train and postal

car at said town of Harvey, North Dakota, said railway mail clerk

or other postal official, between eleven and twelve o'clock of

said night, delivered said mail sack, duly locked, together with

said registered package of currency therein contained, to one

James Magson, the night station agent, or night operator of

defendant at said town of Harvey; that said night station agent,

or night operator, was not sworn as an official or employed of

the Post Office Department of the United States government, as

required by law, but was then and there employed and duly

authorized by the defendant to receive and take charge of all

mail matter received over defendant's said line of railway, at

said town of Harvey, including the mail sack or mail pouch

containing said package of currency, and to deposit same in

defendant's depot, at Harvey, North Dakota, and did so receive,

take charge of and deposit said mail sack or mail pouch.

"That defendant was not sworn as an official or employe of the

Post Office Department of the United States government, and had

not subscribed or sworn to any oath relating to or concerning the

carriage of the United States mails, or the performance of

defendant's duties as such carrier of the mails.

"That section 713 of the postal laws and regulations of the

United States of the year A.D. 1893, which was in force at the

time of the receipt and transmission of said registered package

is in words and figures as follows, to wit: `The railroad company

will also be required to take the mails from and deliver them

into all intermediate post offices and postal stations located

not more than eighty rods from the nearest railroad station at

which the company has an agent or other representative employed.'

"That said post office at Harvey was an intermediate post

Page 377

office, and was located not more than eighty rods from

defendant's railroad station, or depot, at or near said town of

Harvey.

"That under said postal regulation it was the duty of said

defendant to provide a sufficient and safe receptacle or place

for the safety and security of said mail, while in its said

custody, also to safely care for and guard said mail sack and its

contents during the night, also to safely deliver the same to the

postmaster or postmistress at the post office in said town of

Harvey, North Dakota.

"But neglecting its said duty in the premises, defendant

wholly failed and neglected to provide any receptacle or place

for the safe or secure keeping of mail, and also failed to place

a duly sworn official in charge of said mail sack, and further

wholly failed to safely care for or guard said mail sack and its

contents, and also wholly failed to safely deliver the same at

the post office to the postmaster in said town of Harvey. That by

reason of defendant's said negligence, some person, to this

plaintiff unknown, in some manner not known to this plaintiff,

obtained access to said mail sack and opened the same, and

abstracted or took therefrom said registered package, whereby the

same was wholly lost to said German State Bank.

"That one George A. Soule was then the road master or foreman

employed by said defendant at said town of Harvey, or one of

defendant's employes or servants, but was not sworn in as an

official or employe of the Post Office Department, as required by

law, and was not authorized or employed by defendant to take

charge of said mail sack or to perform any duty in relation

thereto and had no right of access to said mail sack, or to the

mail therein contained, by virtue of his said employment by

defendant.

"That said Soule had previously unlawfully obtained and caused

to be made, a key to the United States government mail sacks or

mail pouches, and personally, or with the aid and assistance of

some person or persons, to this plaintiff unknown, did enter one

of the rooms contained in the said depot building, where said

mail sack or mail pouch had been placed by

Page 378

defendant's operator or night agent, on the floor or wall of said

room, and not in any separate room, closet or other safe

receptacle, capable of being securely fastened against any

intruder or unauthorized person, by lock and key or otherwise.

That said room was not designed for or capable of safely keeping

valuable articles of property.

"That said Soule, or other person, had no right of access to

said room, or to said mail sack or mail pouch, but through the

negligence of defendant and its said night operator or night

agent, as set forth in this complaint, did gain entrance to said

room and obtain access to said mail sack or mail pouch, and the

mail matter therein contained, and did find said mail sack or

mail pouch situated or placed as above set forth, so that the

same was readily accessible to any person gaining entrance to

said room, and did find said mail sack or mail pouch wholly

unprotected and unguarded by said night operator or otherwise.

"That said Soule, or other person, by reason of the aforesaid

negligence of said defendant and its said night agent or night

operator, did obtain access to said mail sack or mail pouch and

did unlock the same and abstract and take therefrom the aforesaid

registered package, containing said three thousand dollars

($3000) in currency and did unlawfully convert the same to his

use and benefit, and the same has never been delivered or

returned to said German State Bank or to said Metropolitan Bank

of Minneapolis, or to this plaintiff, the Bankers Mutual Casualty

Company, or to any one for the benefit of any of them."

[Then followed averments of payment to the German State Bank

by the Casualty Company under its policy of insurance; of demand

on defendant for repayment, and refusal; of subrogation and

assignment; and prayer for judgment.]

Mr. A.U. Quint, with whomMr. Horatio F. Dale, Mr. WilliamConnorandMr. George W. Bowenwere on the brief, for plaintiff in error:

On the jurisdictional question: The case involved the constructionPage 379and application of the statutes of the United States relating to mails and of the Postal Regulations especially §§ 713 and 1023, edition of 1893. SeeTealv.Felton, 12 How. (N.Y.) 284. The statutes of the United States impose a duty on defendant to safely care for the mail carried by it.

The case also involves the question of exemption of a railway company, carrying the mail, from liability under the rule ofrespondeat superior, either as a public agent of the United States, or as a private corporation for profit, performing the duty in question, established by the statutes of the United States. The Circuit Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court having each held, in effect, that the railway company was entitled to the exemption in this respect which the law gives to one who is strictly a principal public officer.

This case comes within the exception contained in section 6 of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891, 1 Supp. U.S. Stats. 904. This case falls within the provision above quoted, as construed by several decisions of this court.Howardv.UnitedStates to use of Stewart(1902),184 U.S. 676, and cases cited;Robinson Co. v.Belt,187 U.S. 41;McFaddinv.Evans-Snider-Buel Co.,185 U.S. 505;Studebakerv.Perry,184 U.S. 258;Marandev.Tex. P.R. Co.,184 U.S. 173;Press Pub. Co. v.Monroe,164 U.S. 105;Bollesv.OutingCo.,175 U.S. 262;Bradyv.Daly,175 U.S. 148;Autenv.United States National Bank,174 U.S. 125;Sonnentheilv.C.M. Brewing Co.,172 U.S. 401;Union P.R. Co. v.Harris,158 U.S. 326;N. Pac. R. Co. v.Amato,144 U.S. 465;Security Trust Co. v.Dent,187 U.S. 237.Mr. Alfred H. Brightfor defendant in error:

As to the jurisdictional question: The Circuit Court acquired jurisdiction on the ground of diverse citizenship and the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final.Colorado Cen.Mining Co. v.Turck,150 U.S. 138;Borgmeyerv.Idler,159 U.S. 408;Loebv.Columbia Township,179 U.S. 472;Am.Page 380Sugar Rfg. Co. v.New Orleans,181 U.S. 277;Huguleyv.Galeton Cotton Mills,184 U.S. 290.

The sufficiency of this complaint to sustain the claim of jurisdiction on the ground that it shows a suit "arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States" must be tested by rules firmly settled by the decisions of this court.Gold-Washing Companyv.Keyes,96 U.S. 199,202;Am. SugarRfg. Co. v.New Orleans,181 U.S. 277, and cases cited;Ansbrov.United States,159 U.S. 695;McCainv.DesMoines,174 U.S. 168;Bridge Proprietorsv.Hoboken Co., 1 Wall. 116, 143;Starinv.New York,115 U.S. 248, and cases cited p. 257;Shreveportv.Cole,129 U.S. 36;New Orleansv.Benjamin,153 U.S. 411,424;St. Joseph c. Ry. v.Steele,167 U.S. 659;Hanfordv.Davies,163 U.S. 273,279;West. Un. Tel. Co. v.Ann Arbor R.R.,178 U.S. 239,243.

Not every suit springing out of facts related to the authority of the United States or to the Constitution or laws thereof, regardless of the nature of that relation, may be said to be a suit arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.Metcalfv.Watertown,128 U.S. 586;Mail Companyv.Flanders, 12 Wall. 130;Albrightv.Teas,106 U.S. 613;Hartzellv.Tilghmann,99 U.S. 547;Littlev.Hall, 18 How. 165;Blackburnv.Portland Mining Co.,175 U.S. 571;Shoshone Mining Co. v.Rutter,177 U.S. 505;Bausmanv.Dixon,173 U.S. 113;Popev.Railway Co.,173 U.S. 573;McKennav.Simpson,129 U.S. 506;Provident Savings Soc. v.Ford,114 U.S. 635;Pricev.Railway Co.,113 U.S. 218.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

If the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court depended entirely on diversity of citizenship, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was made final by the act of March 3, 1891, and this writ of error must be dismissed. But it is contended that jurisdiction also rested on the ground that the case arose underPage 381the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that must be tested by the settled rule that a suit does not so arise unless it really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy as to the effect or construction of the Constitution or some law or treaty of the United States, upon the determination of which the result depends, and which appears on the record by plaintiff's own statement of his case in legal and logical form, such as is required in good pleading.Tennesseev.Union PlantersBank,152 U.S. 454;Arbucklev.Blackburn,191 U.S. 405;Defiance Water Companyv.Defiance,191 U.S. 184;Gold-Washing c. Companyv.Keyes,96 U.S. 199;Starinv.New York,115 U.S. 248.

The amended complaint alleged that defendant was engaged in carrying the mails by virtue of the laws and postal regulations of the United States; that a registered package of currency was deposited in the mails, delivered to the mail clerk on the proper mail car belonging to defendant, duly inclosed with other mail matter in a securely locked mail sack, and transported by defendant to its station at Harvey; that the mail clerk between eleven and twelve o'clock at night delivered the mail sack duly locked and containing the registered package of currency to the night station agent of defendant at the town of Harvey, who was duly authorized by defendant to receive and take charge of all mail matter received there on defendant's railway, neither defendant nor the station agent having taken the oath as officials or employes of the Post Office Department; and it was then averred:

"That section 713 of the postal laws and regulations of the United States of the year A.D. 1893, which was in force at the time of the receipt and transmission of said registered package, is in words and figures as follows, to wit: `The railroad company will also be required to take the mails from and deliver them into all intermediate post offices and postal stations located not more than 80 rods from the nearest railroad station at which the company has an agent or other representative employed.'Page 382

"That said post office at Harvey was an intermediate post office and was located not more than 80 rods from defendant's railroad station, or depot, at or near said town of Harvey.

"That under said postal regulation it was the duty of said defendant to provide a sufficient and safe receptacle or place for the safety and security of said mail, while in its said custody; also to safely care for and guard said mail sack and its contents during the night; also to safely deliver the same to the postmaster or postmistress at the post office in said town of Harvey, North Dakota.

"But neglecting its said duty in the premises, defendant wholly failed and neglected to provide any receptacle or place for the safe or secure keeping of mail, and also failed to place a duly sworn official in charge of said mail sack, and further wholly failed to safely care for or guard said mail sack and its contents, and also wholly failed to safely deliver the same at the post office to the postmaster in said town of Harvey."

And further, that defendant's roadmaster entered the depot, unlocked the mail bag with a key he had unlawfully caused to be made, abstracted the package of currency and converted its contents; that the room where the mail bag was placed was "not designed or capable of safely keeping valuable articles or property," and that it was through the negligence of defendant and its station agent that the man gained entrance to the room and obtained access to the mail bag.

It will be perceived that plaintiff relied on principles of general law applicable to negligence, and to the liability of defendant if there were negligence, and nowhere asserted a right which might be defeated or sustained by one or another construction of the Constitution or of any law of the United States. The complaint did indeed deny that there was any contract between defendant and the government, but that was merely a conclusion of law, inconsistent with the statutes, and with the facts alleged. And whether the duty counted on was imposed by law, or arose from contract, the question remained whether defendant was a public agent of the UnitedPage 383States and the consequences of that relation, and the construction of no provision of the Constitution or of any law of the United States on which the recovery depended was put in controversy.

In other words, no definite issue in respect of a right claimed under the Constitution or any law of the United States was deducible from plaintiff's statement of its case, and if the postal regulations could, under circumstances, be regarded as laws of the United States creating a right which might be denied or secured according to one construction or another, it did not appear that the construction of the extract from section 713 of those regulations was in any way in dispute or could have been. And the averments of the complaint cannot be helped out by resort to the other pleadings or to judicial knowledge.Mountain Viewc. Companyv.McFadden,180 U.S. 533;Arkansasv.Kansasand Texas Coal Company,183 U.S. 185.

The Constitution empowers Congress to establish post offices and post roads, and Congress has passed laws accordingly, pursuant to which defendant was carrying the mails. But the alleged cause of action was not referable to those laws or put on the ground that defendant was an officer or public agent of the United States. That was matter of defense and could not be and was not resorted to by plaintiff to obtain jurisdiction.Tennesseev.Union Planters Bank,152 U.S. 454.

A writ of error to the judgment of a state court stands on different ground. Such wasTealv.Felton, 12 How. 284, in which the postmaster relied on an act of Congress in defence, and the writ was properly granted under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act.

Cases against United States officers as such, or on bonds given under acts of Congress, or involving interference with Federal process, or the due faith and credit to be accorded judgments, are not in point; nor does the case fall within the ruling that a corporation created by Congress has a right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal courts in respect to any litigation it may have except as specially restricted. ThePage 384doctrine ofPacific Railroad Removal Cases,115 U.S. 1, cannot be extended so as to embrace cases like the present.ShoshoneMining Companyv.Rutter,177 U.S. 505,509.

On the other hand, such cases asProvident Savings Societyv.Ford,114 U.S. 635;Metcalfv.Watertown,128 U.S. 586;Colorado Central Mining Companyv.Turck,150 U.S. 138;St.Joseph c. R.R. Co. v.Steele,167 U.S. 659;Prattv.ParisGas Light c. Company,168 U.S. 255;Western Union TelegraphCompanyv.Ann Arbor Railroad Company,178 U.S. 239;Gablemanv.Peoria c. Railway Company,179 U.S. 335, show that suits though involving the Constitution or laws of the United States are not suits arising under the Constitution or laws where they do not turn on a controversy between the parties in regard to the operation of the Constitution or laws, on the facts.

InPricev.Pennsylvania Railroad Company,113 U.S. 218, which was a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the question arose whether a railway mail clerk was a passenger within a certain statute of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion, said:

"The plaintiff argues here, and insisted throughout the progress of the case in the state courts, that by reason of certain laws of the United States as applied to the facts found in the verdict of the jury, the decedent was a passenger, and the Supreme Court erred in holding otherwise. These laws are thus cited in the brief of plaintiff's counsel

"`Act of March 3, 1865, § 8,13 Stat. 506, provides that `For the purpose of assorting and distributing letters and other matter in railway post offices, the Postmaster General may, from time to time, appoint clerks who shall be paid out of the appropriation for mail transportation.'

"`§ 4000 Rev. Stat. requires that `Every railway company carrying the mail shall carry on any train which may run over its road, and without extra charge therefor, all mailable matter directed to be carried thereon, with the person in charge of the same.'Page 385

"We do not think these provisions either aid or govern the construction of the proviso in the Pennsylvania statute.

"The person thus to be carried with the mail matter, without extra charge, is no more a passenger because he is in charge of the mail, nor because no other compensation is made for his transportation, than if he had no such charge, nor does the fact that he is in the employment of the United States, and that defendant is bound by contract with the government to carry him, affect the question. It would be just the same if the company had contracted with any other person who had charge of freight on the train to carry him without additional compensation. The statutes of the United States which authorize this employment and direct this service do not, therefore, make the person so engaged a passenger, or deprive him of that character, in construing the Pennsylvania statute. Nor does it give to persons so employed anyrightas against the railroad company, which would not belong to any other person in a similar employment, by others than the United States.

"We are, therefore, of opinion that no question of Federal authority was involved in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the writ of error is accordingly dismissed."

Although that case was a writ of error to a state court it was held, in effect, that it was too obvious for controversy that the acts of Congress referred to did not give the mail clerk any particular right as against the railroad company in respect of negligence and therefore this court declined to entertain the writ.

We repeat that the rule is settled that a case does not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States unless it appears from plaintiff's own statement, in the outset, that some title, right, privilege or immunity on which recovery depends will be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or sustained by the opposite construction.Gold-Washing c. Companyv.Keyes,96 U.S. 199;Page 386Starinv.New York,115 U.S. 248;New Orleansv.Benjamin,153 U.S. 411;Blackburnv.Portland Gold MiningCompany,175 U.S. 571;Shoshone Mining Companyv.Rutter,177 U.S. 505.

Tested by this rule, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court depended entirely on diversity of citizenship and not in any degree on grounds making the case one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.Writ of error dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissented.