Hambleton v. Duham

22 F. 465, 10 Sawy. 489, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2556
CourtUnited States Circuit Court
DecidedDecember 8, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 22 F. 465 (Hambleton v. Duham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hambleton v. Duham, 22 F. 465, 10 Sawy. 489, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2556 (uscirct 1884).

Opinion

Sawyer, J.

The jurisdictional facts attempted to be alleged are stated in the form held to he insufficient in Wolff v. Archibald, 14 Fed. Rep. 369: “as defendants are informed and believe.”' The. court there held that jurisdictional facts must be positively alleged.. On this point the sufficiency of the petition is, at least, doubtful. But, whether that ruling be correct or not, the allegations are insufficient, because they do not state facts showing that any particular disputed question of construction of the statute will arise, or how it will arise, so that the court can determine for itself, from the facts, that the decision will turn upon a disputed construction of the statute. On this point only the conclusion of the petitioner is stated. For all that appears, from the facts stated, the case may he determined entirely upon a disputed question of fact; as, whether the land is, in fact, swamp land or upland or some other question of fact. The petition is insufficient in this particular, under the decision in Trafton v. Nougues, 4 Sawy. 179; Dowell v. Griswold, 5 Sawy. 39; Gold-Washing Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199.

Cause remanded to the state court, with costs.

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

Related

Bradford v. Mitchell Brothers Truck Lines
217 F. Supp. 525 (N.D. California, 1963)
Miller v. Illinois Cent. R.
168 F. 982 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia, 1909)
Wise v. Nixon
76 F. 3 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, 1896)
Southern Pac. R. v. Whittaker
47 F. 529 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1891)
Austin v. Gagan
39 F. 626 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 F. 465, 10 Sawy. 489, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hambleton-v-duham-uscirct-1884.