Mulqueen v. Schlichter Jute Cordage Co.

108 F. 931, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4578

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

The principal question raised and argued upon this motion cannot be considered by a federal court in this action. The plaintiffs haye a complete legal title to an undivided x/2i of the land described in the writ, and, for the present, this title must prevail. The defense set up is purely equitable, and, while it would be admissible in a Pennsylvania court, it cannot be entertained by a court of the United States in an action at law. The precise point was decided in Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212, 4 L. Ed. 372. See, also, Montejo v. Owen, 14 Blatchf. 324, Fed. Cas. No. 9,722; Snyder v. Pharo (C. C.) 25 Fed. 398; and Kircher v. Murray (C. C.) 54 Fed. 626. As the point is jurisdictional, I am bound to take notice of it upon my own motion, even although it was not raised by the parties themselves: Terry v. Davy (C. C.) 107 Fed. 50.

The motion is refused, and judgment will be entered upon the verdict in favor of the plaintiff.