New Orleans v. Emsheimer

Supreme Court

New Orleans v. Emsheimer

181 U.S. 153, 21 S. Ct. 584, 45 L. Ed. 794, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1352

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 15, 1901

Docket337

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 181 U.S. 153 (New Orleans v. Emsheimer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New Orleans v. Emsheimer, 181 U.S. 153, 21 S. Ct. 584, 45 L. Ed. 794, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1352 (1901).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chief Justice

: Emsheimer filed his bill against the city of New Orleans, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking to collect certain certificates of indebtedness issued by the Board of Metropolitan Police of New Orleans through an accounting; to which the city demurred on the grounds that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction as such for want of proper averments of diverse citizenship; that necessary parties were lacking; and that the remedy was at law, and not in equity.

The Circuit Court held that the averments in respect of citizenship were sufficient, but sustained the demurrer on the *154 ground, that there was no equity in the bill, and dismissed the bill “ for want of equity with full reservation of complainant’s right to sue and proceed at law.”

Subsequently an appeal was granted to this court, on application of the city,- “for the sole and exclusive-purpose of having a review of the finding, decision-, and decree of the court overruling the said first ground of the said demurrer, by which the. jurisdiction of this court and the sufficiency of the averments of the bill purporting to show the same are put at issue.”

. Defendant below sought .no affirmative relief, but simply to' defeat the. suit. In this it succeeded, and the decree is a bar to another suit-in equity on this cause of action so long as it stands unreversed.

The decree did not injure defendant but sustained its contention, and defendant is in no position to complain that it is aggrieved by its own success. The- decree cannot be reversed at its instance- because put on one of the grounds it urged rather than another.

If'complainant brings an action'at law, and the'question of Federal jurisdiction is .in issue, or if this decree should be hereafter reversed and Federal and equity jurisdiction sustained, it will be time enough if final judgment or decree passes against defendant in the Circuit Court for the question of jurisdiction .to be certified. United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109; Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355.

Appeal dismissed'.

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

The Chief Justice

: Emsheimer filed his bill against the city of New Orleans, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking to collect certain certificates of indebtedness issued by the Board of Metropolitan Police of New Orleans through an accounting; to which the city demurred on the grounds that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction as such for want of proper averments of diverse citizenship; that necessary parties were lacking; and that the remedy was at law, and not in equity.

The Circuit Court held that the averments in respect of citizenship were sufficient, but sustained the demurrer on the *154 ground, that there was no equity in the bill, and dismissed the bill “ for want of equity with full reservation of complainant’s right to sue and proceed at law.”

Subsequently an appeal was granted to this court, on application of the city,- “for the sole and exclusive-purpose of having a review of the finding, decision-, and decree of the court overruling the said first ground of the said demurrer, by which the. jurisdiction of this court and the sufficiency of the averments of the bill purporting to show the same are put at issue.”

. Defendant below sought .no affirmative relief, but simply to' defeat the. suit. In this it succeeded, and the decree is a bar to another suit-in equity on this cause of action so long as it stands unreversed.

The decree did not injure defendant but sustained its contention, and defendant is in no position to complain that it is aggrieved by its own success. The- decree cannot be reversed at its instance- because put on one of the grounds it urged rather than another.

If'complainant brings an action'at law, and the'question of Federal jurisdiction is .in issue, or if this decree should be hereafter reversed and Federal and equity jurisdiction sustained, it will be time enough if final judgment or decree passes against defendant in the Circuit Court for the question of jurisdiction .to be certified. United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109; Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355.

Appeal dismissed'.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 U.S. 153, 21 S. Ct. 584, 45 L. Ed. 794, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-orleans-v-emsheimer-scotus-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack