Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co. v. Hanley
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Hanley brought this bill in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of- Idaho, setting up diversity of citizenship as the ground of jurisdiction, and asserted ownership of an undivided one-eighth interest, and of an undivided one-third' interest, in the Skookum mining claim, Shoshone County, Idaho.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Hanley brought this bill in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of- Idaho, setting up diversity of citizenship as the ground of jurisdiction, and asserted ownership of an undivided one-eighth interest, and of an undivided one-third' interest, in the Skookum mining claim, Shoshone County, Idaho. As to the one-third interest, Hanley claimed under certain proceedings in the Probate Court of that county, which were, without notice to him as he said, set aside, and the interest conveyed to the Chemung…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Fuller
We are of opinion that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was dependent entirely upon diversity of citizenship, and that this appeal must be dismissed. Appellants’ contention is that the allegations of Hanley’s complaint as to the one-third interest amounted to the assertion that he had been deprived of that interest by the Probate Court without due process of law, and were sufficient to support the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, on this ground, irrespective of diversity of citizenship. We. do not so regard the allegations. What Hanley asserted was that his title to'the third.interest…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Ann Arbor RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Lampasas v. BellSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Arbuckle v. BlackburnSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co. No. 2Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
3Cited by4 opinions
- Mason v. WolkowichCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1906
- Richey v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1911
- Chemung Mining Co. v. HanleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1905
- Milam v. DavisSupreme Court of Florida · 1929