US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for


Subscribe to Cases that cite 220 U. S. 413 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Willard, 220 U.S. 413 (1911)

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company v. Willard

No. 105

Submitted March 17, 1911

Decided April 10, 1911

220 U.S. 413


On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction -- first of this Court and then of the court below. This question must be asked and answered by the Court itself, even when not otherwise suggested and without respect to the relation of the parties to it. M. C. & L. M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379.

Consent of parties can never confer jurisdiction upon a federal court, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 220 U. S. 414

and this Court can of its own motion prevent the Circuit Court from exercising jurisdiction not conferred upon it by statute. Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48.

In the absence of express exemptions in the statute, a statutory permission to a railroad to lease its road does not relieve the lessor from its charter obligations.

Where, as in Illinois, the lessor railroad company remains liable with the lessee company for torts arising from operation, a plaintiff sustaining injuries may bring an action either separately or against both jointly, and in the latter case, neither defendant can remove on the ground of diverse citizenship if either is a resident of the plaintiff's state.

A defendant cannot say that an action shall be several if the plaintiff has a right, and so declares, to make it joint, and to make it joint is not fraudulent if the right to do so exists, even if plaintiff does so to prevent removal.

Removability of an action depends upon the state of the pleadings and the record at the time of the application.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the circuit court and the right of a defendant to remove a case thereto from the state court on the ground of separable controversy, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 220 U. S. 416

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™