State v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.

7,391
Decided Circuit Court, D. Kansas, F. D.
Disposition
remanded
full scope · unanimous
Scan to open on mobileScan to open on another device
Court
district court of Jefferson county
Decided
Judge
FOSTER, District Judge
Posture
Action commenced in state court to forfeit real estate under state statute
Defendants (2)
ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO.
E. D. Kenna, O. N. Sterry, Robert Dunlap, Albert H. Horton
v.
Plaintiff (1)
STATE OF KANSAS
Henry Keeler, D. E. Hite, H. T. Phenney

Overview

The court concludes it is without jurisdiction and orders the case remanded to the state court.

Case summary

The State of Kansas sued the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company in state court to forfeit railroad property under an 1891 state statute prohibiting corporations with more than 20% foreign ownership from holding real estate. The defendant removed the case to federal circuit court, claiming it arose under federal laws and treaties. The state moved to remand. The federal court held it lacked jurisdiction because, under the Judiciary Act of 1887-88, removal requires the plaintiff's complaint to show reliance on federal law. Here, the state's claim was based solely on state law, and any federal issues were merely anticipated defenses. The court remanded the case to state court, emphasizing that federal questions raised only in defense do not create federal jurisdiction for removal purposes.

Abstract

The state sued a railroad company in state court to forfeit its real estate holdings based on a statute prohibiting corporations with excessive foreign ownership from holding such property. The defendant removed the case to federal court claiming it arose under federal laws and treaties, but the federal court held it lacked jurisdiction because the state's complaint relied solely on state law, with federal issues raised only as anticipated defenses. The court remanded the case to state court, confirming that federal questions in defenses do not support removal jurisdiction.

Opinion of the court

Majority
opinion
FOSTER, District Judgejoined by THAYER, Circuit Judge
  • Jurisdiction is threshold question courts must address sua sponte
  • Under Act of 1887-88, removal requires plaintiff's complaint to show federal question
  • Plaintiff here bases claim solely on state statute
  • Anticipated federal defenses do not create removal jurisdiction
  • Defendant can raise federal defenses in state court and appeal to U.S. Supreme Court if denied

Concurring opinions

1
Concurring THAYER, Circuit Judge

Jurisdiction

challenged
Subject matter
Federal question jurisdiction under Act of Congress of March 3, 1887, as amended in 1888
Jurisdictional holding
Court lacks jurisdiction; case must be remanded to state court because plaintiff's complaint does not show reliance on federal law
Jurisdictional facts
  • Defendant removed case to federal court on ground it is a civil action arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States

Procedural posture

Posture at trial
Action commenced in state court to forfeit real estate under state statute
Posture on appeal
Motion to remand to state court after removal to federal court
Preserved issues
  • Jurisdiction of federal court to hear removed case

Legal categories

Business

Case record

Full case name
STATE OF KANSAS v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO.
Docket number
7,391
Court
Circuit Court, D. Kansas, F. D.
Trial court
district court of Jefferson county
Trial court judge
Not specified
Decided
Opinion author
FOSTER, District Judge
Opinion type
published
Precedential status
precedential
Judges on panel
THAYER, Circuit JudgeFOSTER, District Judge

Issues & holdings

1
Issues raised
1
reversed
1
Holdings
Standard of review

de novo

Disposition rationale

Plaintiff's complaint does not show reliance on federal law; removal improper under Act of 1887-88

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Holdings of the court

Federal court jurisdiction over removed case
Court lacks jurisdiction; case must be remanded to state court
Under Act of 1887-88, removal requires plaintiff's complaint to show reliance on federal law; here plaintiff bases claim solely on state statute and only anticipates federal defense
unanimousbinding precedent

Statutory interpretation

2
Statute
Act of Congress of March 3, 1887, as amended August 13, 1888
Question
Whether case can be removed to federal court as arising under federal law when only defense raises federal question
Court's reading
Removal requires plaintiff's complaint to show reliance on federal law; defense alone insufficient
Canons applied
Plain meaningLegislative intent to contract federal jurisdiction
Statute
Kansas Act of 1891, Chapter 8
Question
Whether statute authorizes forfeiture of railroad property with federal land grants
Court's reading
Not reached; merits not considered in jurisdictional ruling

Standards of review

  • Jurisdiction to hear removed case — de novo Question of law regarding statutory interpretation of removal statutes

Timeline

5
Events
12,333
Days, incident to ruling
—
Span
factual eventcited in opinion

Act of Congress grants lands to state of Kansas in trust for Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad Company

Created federal interests in railroad lands that defendant might raise as defense

U.S. Congress · State of Kansas · Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad Company
factual eventcited in opinion

Kansas legislature enacts Chapter 8 restricting alien ownership of real estate and providing for forfeiture

Basis for state's forfeiture action against defendant

Kansas Legislature
procedural eventcited in opinion

State commences forfeiture action in district court of Jefferson county

Initiation of case leading to removal and remand issues

State of Kansas · ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. trial court
procedural eventcited in opinion

Defendant removes case to federal circuit court based on federal question jurisdiction

Basis for jurisdictional dispute

ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. · Circuit Court, D. Kansas appellate court
rulingcited in opinion

Federal circuit court grants motion to remand case to state court for lack of jurisdiction

Outcome: Case remanded to state court

Final disposition on jurisdictional issue

FOSTER, District Judge · THAYER, Circuit Judge appellate court

Facts & evidence

Incident

Location
Jefferson county, Kansas

Key facts

4 facts
  1. State of Kansas sued to forfeit real estate, roadbed, and right of way of defendant railroad company under 1891 state act restricting alien ownership of real estate
  2. Act provides forfeiture if more than 20% of corporate stock owned by nonresident aliens
  3. Defendant is successor to Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad Company, which received land grants from U.S. government under Act of March 3, 1863
  4. Defendant operates interstate railroad system across multiple states and territories

Procedural history

3 steps
  1. Action commenced in district court of Jefferson county
  2. Defendant removed to federal circuit court based on federal question
  3. State moved to remand to state court

Evidence in the record

Documentary
  • Act of Kansas legislature of 1891 (Chapter 8)
  • Act of Congress of March 3, 1863 granting lands to railroad
  • Judiciary Act of March 3, 1887 as amended in 1888

Authorities

Cited authorities (4)

152 U.S. 454
followedquotedprecedent
Established that removal requires plaintiff's complaint to show federal question
at 152 U.S. 461
128 U.S. 586
followedprecedent
Plaintiff must show federal question in complaint for original jurisdiction
102 U.S. 135
distinguisheddistinguished
Under Act of 1875, removal allowed if either party raised federal question
Rule changed by Act of 1887-88
9 Wheat. 738
appliedquotedprecedent
Case arises under federal law when question assumes form judicial power can act on it

Related cases (5)

Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454, 14 Sup. Ct. 654
prior appeal
Established rule that removal requires plaintiff's complaint to show federal question
Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 586, 9 Sup. Ct. 173
prior appeal
Plaintiff must show federal question in complaint for original jurisdiction
City of Fergus Falls v. Fergus Falls Water Co., 19 C.C.A. 212, 72 Fed. 874
prior appeal
Federal question cannot be injected by anticipating defense
Railroad Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U.S. 135
prior appeal
Under Act of 1875, removal allowed if either party raised federal question
Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738
prior appeal
Case arises under federal law when question assumes form judicial power can act on it

Statutes

  • Act of Congress March 3, 1887 (Judiciary Act)
  • Kansas Act of 1891, Chapter 8 (alien ownership restriction)
  • Act of Congress March 3, 1863 (railroad land grant)

Standards & doctrines

  • Well-pleaded complaint rule for removal jurisdiction

Legal principles applied

  • Jurisdiction determined from plaintiff's complaint alone
  • Defense raising federal question does not create removal jurisdiction
Index terms56
Summary terms
Legal mechanisms
Various actions
Various actors
Legal concepts
Legal outcomes
Legal issues
Legal procedures
Legal remedies
Legal evidence
Legal arguments
Legal defenses
Legal penalties
Legal procedural steps
Geo locations
Judges
Attorneys
Procedural terms
Entities and documentation
Legal actions
Action type
remanded
Target
case to state court
Appealed from
federal circuit court
Context
Court lacks jurisdiction because plaintiff's complaint does not show reliance on federal law
Scope
full
Further instructions
Remand to state court in condition received; vacate any orders made in federal court
Disposition vote
unanimous
Search facets
Parties
Judges
Foster
Courts
Locations
Statutes cited