City of Salamanca v. Seneca Nation of Indians

W.D. New York

City of Salamanca v. Seneca Nation of Indians

47 F. Supp. 939, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2191

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. New York

DecidedNovember 16, 1942

DocketCiv. No. 1135

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 47 F. Supp. 939 (City of Salamanca v. Seneca Nation of Indians) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Salamanca v. Seneca Nation of Indians, 47 F. Supp. 939, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2191 (W.D.N.Y. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

KNIGHT, District Judge.

I

The complaint discloses that this is a suit which arises under the Constitution and Laws of the United States, Art. I, sec. S, sub. 3, Act of Congress of February 19, 1875, section 7, 18 Stat. 330; also Act of Congress of February 27, 1901, 31 Stat. 816, and the District Court has original jurisdiction herein. Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 81.

II

The complaint sufficiently shows the jurisdictional amount, alleging as it does that $3000 is involved and coupling this with sufficient facts relative thereto. However, in view of the decision hereinafter expressed, any question in this connection is immaterial.

III

J3] This suit was properly removed to this court, and the motion to remand must be denied.

IV

I have carefully reviewed the record of the proceedings in the state court on the application for removal to this court, and the briefs and the authorities submitted upon the hearing herein, and it is my opinion that this suit cannot be maintained in this court without congressional authorization. Such is lacking. Vide United States v. Forness, 2 Cir., 125 F.2d 928; and cases therein cited; United States v. United States Fidelity & G. Co., 309 U.S. 506, 508, 60 S.Ct. 653, 84 L.Ed. 894; Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354, 39 S.Ct. 109, 63 L.Ed. 291.

V

In my view none of the other questions raised by the plaintiff need be considered in view of the foregoing, and I do not deem it necessary to extend this opinion further. I may add that the plaintiff and the other lessees will have the opportunity to contest the authority for their removal in any action or actions brought against them.

The motion to dismiss the suit is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KNIGHT, District Judge.

I

The complaint discloses that this is a suit which arises under the Constitution and Laws of the United States, Art. I, sec. S, sub. 3, Act of Congress of February 19, 1875, section 7, 18 Stat. 330; also Act of Congress of February 27, 1901, 31 Stat. 816, and the District Court has original jurisdiction herein. Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 81.

II

The complaint sufficiently shows the jurisdictional amount, alleging as it does that $3000 is involved and coupling this with sufficient facts relative thereto. However, in view of the decision hereinafter expressed, any question in this connection is immaterial.

III

J3] This suit was properly removed to this court, and the motion to remand must be denied.

IV

I have carefully reviewed the record of the proceedings in the state court on the application for removal to this court, and the briefs and the authorities submitted upon the hearing herein, and it is my opinion that this suit cannot be maintained in this court without congressional authorization. Such is lacking. Vide United States v. Forness, 2 Cir., 125 F.2d 928; and cases therein cited; United States v. United States Fidelity & G. Co., 309 U.S. 506, 508, 60 S.Ct. 653, 84 L.Ed. 894; Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354, 39 S.Ct. 109, 63 L.Ed. 291.

V

In my view none of the other questions raised by the plaintiff need be considered in view of the foregoing, and I do not deem it necessary to extend this opinion further. I may add that the plaintiff and the other lessees will have the opportunity to contest the authority for their removal in any action or actions brought against them.

The motion to dismiss the suit is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 F. Supp. 939, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-salamanca-v-seneca-nation-of-indians-nywd-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack