Miller & Lux, Inc. v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. The facts are stated in the opinion. The mere fact (if it be a fact) that complainant was formed and this property transferred tb it for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon the 'Federal courts, can in no way affect the jurisdiction of those courts.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. The facts are stated in the opinion. The mere fact (if it be a fact) that complainant was formed and this property transferred tb it for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon the 'Federal courts, can in no way affect the jurisdiction of those courts. Dickemnan v. Northern Trust Co., 176 U. S. 181, 191; McDonald v. Smalley, 1 Pet. 620; Smith v. Kernochen,-7 How. 198, 216; Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280; Morris -v. Gilmer, 129 TJ. S. 315, 328; Cross v. Allen, 141 U.,S. 52$,533; Crawford v. Neal,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Harlan
'This suit was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California by “Miller & Lux, Incorporated,” a corporation of Nevada, against the East Side Canal & Irrigation Company, a corporation of California.
The case is here upon a certificate under the act of Congress ■of March- 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 S.tat. 826, relating.to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court as affected by § 5 of the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, 472. .That section provides that if, ■in any siiit commenced in a Circuit Court or removed from a state court to a Circuit Court of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Grace v. American Central InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Barney v. Baltimore CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Morris v. GilmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Lehigh Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Börs v. PrestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- McSparran v. WeistCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Ambrosia Coal v. Hector Carlos Pages MoralesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2007
- Ca 79-3053 Publicker Industries, Inc. And Continental Distilling Corporation v. Roman Ceramics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of LondonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.