American Sugar Refining Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U.S. 277 (1901)
American Sugar Refining Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U.S. 277 (1901)
277
21 S.Ct. 646
45 L.Ed. 859
This was a petition for a writ of certiorari requiring the United States
circuit court of appeals for the fifth circuit to certify to this court for its
review and determination the case of American Sugar Ref. Co. v. New
Orleans, No. 920, Nov. Term 1899, 43 C. C. A. 393, 104 Fed. Rep. 2, or
in the alternative for a writ of mandamus to command the judges of said
court to hear, try, and adjudge said cause.
The petition alleged that on June 14, 1899, the city of New Orleans
brought suit by rule in a civil district court for the parish of Orleans,
Louisiana, against the American Sugar Refining Company for a city
license tax for the year 1899 for the sum of $6,250, with interest thereon,
claiming said license tax solely by virtue of the laws of Louisiana and an
ordinance of the city of New Orleans, as an occupation tax for carrying on
the business of refining sugar and molassess in that city; that the
American Sugar Refining Company petitioned the district court for an
order removing the suit to the circuit court of the United States for the
eastern district for Louisiana, the petition for removal being based solely
upon the ground that the defendant was a corporation of New Jersey, and
the plaintiff a corporation of Louisiana; which petition was granted, the
bond required given, a certified copy of the record filed, and the suit
dockated in the circuit court.
That thereafter, by order of the court, the city reformed its pleadings in
some parts, 'the only difference of substance between said reformed
petition and the original rule being that said reformed petition omitted the
formal prayer for a recognition of a lien and privilege on defendant's
property, and for an injunction against defendant carrying on its business.'
The jurisdiction of the circuit court rested on diverse citizenship, and not on any
other ground, and had the circuit court of appeals gone on and decided the case,
its decision would have been final, and our interposition could only have been
invoked by certiorari.
contravention of the Constitution of the United States, that a writ of error could
be taken directly from this court to revise the judgment of the circuit court,
although it was also ruled that the plaintiff might have carried the case to the
circuit court of appeals, and that, if a final judgment were rendered by that court
against him, he could not thereafter have invoked the jurisdiction of this court
directly on another writ of error to review the judgment of the circuit court.
4
The intention of the act in general was that the appellate jurisdiction should be
distributed, and that there should not be two appeals, but in cases where the
decisions of the courts of appeals are not made final it is provided that 'there
shall be of right an appeal or writ of error or review of the case by the Supreme
Court of the United States where the matter in controversy shall exceed one
thousand dollars besides costs.' [ 6.]
And the right to two appeals would exist in every case (the litigated matter
having the requisite value), where the jurisdiction of the circuit court rested
solely on the ground that the suit arose under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States, if such cases could be carried to the circuit courts of
appeals, for their decisions would not come within the category of those made
final.
As, however, a case so arises where it appears on the record, from plaintiff's
own statement, in legal and logical from, such as is required by good pleading,
that the suit is one which does really and substantially involve a dispute or
controversy as to a right which depends on the construction or application of
the Constitution or some law or treaty of the United States (Little York GoldWashing & Water Co. v. Keycs, 96 U. S. 199, 24 L. ed. 656; Blackburn v.
Portland Gold Min. Co. 175 U. S. 571, 44 L. ed. 276, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 222;
Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co. 178 U. S. 239, 44 L. ed. 1052, 20
Sup. Ct. Rep. 867); and as those cases fall strictly within the terms of section 5,
the appellate jurisdiction of this court in respect of them is exclusive.
In Carter v. Roberts, 177 U. S. 496. 44 L. ed. 861, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 713, we
said: 'When cases arise which are controlled by the construction or application
of the Constitution of the United States, a direct appeal lies to this court, and if
such cases are carried to the circuit courts of appeals those courts may decline
to take jurisdiction, or, where such construction or application is involved with
other questions, may certify the constitutional question and afterwards proceed
to judgment, or may decide the whole case in the first instance.' These
observations perhaps need some qualification. Undoubtedly where the
jurisdiction of the circuit court depends solely on diverse citizenship, and it
turns out that the case involves the construction or application of the
Constitution of the United States, or the constitutionality of a law of the United
States, or the validity or construction of a treaty, is drawn in question, or the
Constitution or law of a state is claimed to be in contravention of the
Constitution of the United States, the circuit court of appeals may certify the
constitutional or treaty question to this court, and proceed as thereupon advised,
or may decide the whole case; but language should not have been used
susceptible of the meaning that in cases where the jurisdiction below is invoked
on the ground of diverse citizenship the circuit court of appeals might decline to
take jurisdiction, or, in other words, might dismiss the appeal or writ of error
for want of jurisdiction. The mere fact that in such a case one or more of the
constitutional questions referred to in 5 may have so arisen that a direct resort
to this court might be had does not deprive the court of appeals of jurisdiction,
or justify it in declining to exercise it.
In the case at bar the jurisdiction rested on diverse citizenship. Two defenses
were interposed, one of which asserted exemption from the license tax, and the
other denied the constitutionality of the legislation under which the tax was
imposed. Both defenses were overruled, and judgment rendered for the
plaintiff. The case was then carried on error to the circuit court of appeals,
which gave judgment dismissing the writ of error for want of jurisdiction. In
this we think the court erred, and that a certiorari should issue that its judgment
to that effect may be revised. As the record is before us on the return to the rule
hereinbefore entered, and full argument has been had, it will be unnecessary for
another return to be made to the writ, or further argument to be submitted.
10
11