In order for the federal court to have jurisdiction, it must not only involve a federal question, but it must be a suit of which the court can take jurisdiction. If, for instance, it is a suit to enjoin a tax, and of such a character that an equity court has no jurisdiction, then the federal equity court cannot take jurisdiction.o1

A common character of controversy is that class in which state legislation is alleged to violate the obligation of contracts. This is undoubtedly a federal question. There are numerous illustrations of this class in cases which have gone to the Supreme Court, and cases involving the right of cities after having given one waterworks company or public service company the right to supply them with utilities, to give the same right to subsequent companies, or to undertake the supply themselves.62

Another instance is where it is claimed that subsequent legislation infringes an exemption from taxation conferred by a charter.68

The question what effect a federal judgment has as a lien by virtue of state or federal statutes, when such judgment is a necessary link in a chain of title, is a federal question.64

Fed. 943. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 820-824.

61 Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Koehne, 188 U. S. 681, 23 Sup. Ct. 452, 47 L. Ed. 651. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 820-824.

62 Hamilton Gaslight & Coke Co. v. Hamilton, 146 U. S. 258, 13 Sup. Ct. 90, 36 L. Ed. 963; Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 65, 22 Sup. Ct. 585, 46 L. Ed. 808; City of Dawson v. Columbia Ave. Saving Fund, Safe Deposit, Title & Trust Co., 197 U. S. 178, 25 Sup. Ct. 420, 49 L. Ed. 713; American Telephone & Telegraph Co. of Alabama v. New Decatur (C. C.) 176 Fed. 133. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 820-824.

63 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28, 21 Sup. Ct. 251, 45 L. Ed. 410; Jetton v. University of the South, 208 U. S. 489, 28 Sup. Ct. 375, 52 L. Ed. 584. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 820-824.

64 Cooke v. Avery, 147 U. S. 375, 13 Sup. Ct. 340, 37 L. Ed. 209. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 820-824.

But the mere fact that suit is brought upon a judgment of a federal court does not make it a federal question."

65

Many cases involving federal questions arise out of the federal control or influence over navigable waters. The question whether certain structures are obstructions to navigation in waters claimed to be so navigable as to fall under the jurisdiction of the United States, and the question as to the right to erect a dock claimed by virtue of an act of Congress, are federal questions.

66

But not mere questions of conflicting riparian rights, though tracing back to federal patents."7

Suits based upon the interstate commerce act, or the commercial clause of the Constitution, involve federal questions.68

National Banks

It has been stated above that suits against corporations organized under acts of Congress per se involve federal questions. Independent of statute, this would be true as to suits against national banks, but Congress has seen fit to provide expressly that the federal courts should not have jurisdiction in suits against national banks under any other circumstances than such as they would have in cases against individual citizens of the same state."

69

65 Provident Sav. Life Assur. Soc. v. Ford, 114 U. S. 635, 5 Sup. Ct. 1104, 29 L. Ed. 261. Compare H. C. Cook Co. v. Beecher, 217 U. S. 497, 30 Sup. Ct. 601, 54 L. Ed. 855. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (KeyNo.) $$ 282, 290; Cent. Dig. §§ 820-832.

66 U. S. v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., 176 U. S. 211, 20 Sup. Ct. 343, 44 L. Ed. 437; Cummings v. Chicago, 188 U. S. 410, 23 Sup. Ct. 472, 47 L. Ed. 525; North Shore Boom & Driving Co. v. Nicomen Boom Co., 212 U. S. 406, 29 Sup. Ct. 355, 53 L. Ed. 574. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 288; Cent. Dig. § 830.

67 Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313, 26 Sup. Ct. 652, 50 L. Ed. 1046; McGilvra v. Ross, 215 U. S. 70, 30 Sup. Ct. 27, 54 L. Ed. 95. Also, as analogous, Donnelly v. U. S., 228 U. S. 243, 33 Sup. Ct. 449, 57 L. Ed. See "Courts," Dcc. Dig. (Key-No.) § 288; Cent. Dig.

§ 830.

68 In re Lennon, 166 U. S. 548, 17 Sup. Ct. 658, 41 L. Ed. 1110. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 289; Cent. Dig. § 830.

69 Judicial Code, § 24, par. 16; CONTINENTAL NAT. BANK v.

Under this, the mere fact that the suit is against a national bank does not give jurisdiction. But if the question raised in the suit is such as would constitute a federal question independent of the fact that the defendant is a national bank, the court would have jurisdiction. For instance, the question whether a national bank which had acquired stock in a state bank, and was sued as a stockholder, had a right to acquire such stock, or whether it was acquired in the regular course of business, constitutes a federal question, and gives jurisdiction.70

A suit for damages against directors of a national bank for making a false report, though in form an action of deceit, raises a federal question.11

On the other hand, where a stockholder of a national bank had sold his stock, and the purchaser had failed to transfer it, in consequence of which the vendor remained as a stockholder on the books of the bank, and was sued after the failure of the bank for his stock assessment, a suit by him against the purchaser for failing to transfer did not involve a federal question.72

A suit based on the refusal of election officers to receive a vote at a congressional election is essentially a suit arising under the federal Constitution, of which the court has jurisdiction, though it may subsequently decide that there is no merit in the contention.73

BUFORD, 191 U. S. 119, 24 Sup. Ct. 54, 48 L. Ed. 119; ante, p. 82. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 294; Cent. Dig. § 836; “Banks and Banking," Cent. Dig. §§ 1056, 1059.

70 California Nat. Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362, 17 Sup. Ct. 831, 42 L. Ed. 198. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 299; Cent. Dig. $841.

Sup. Ct. 403, 56 L. Ed. 673.
Cent. Dig. § 841.

71 Thomas v. Taylor, 224 U. S. 73, 32 See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 299; 72 Le Sassier v. Kennedy, 123 U. S. 521, 8 Sup. Ct. 244, 31 L. Ed. 262; In re Jones, 164 U. S. 691, 17 Sup. Ct. 222, 41 L. Ed. 601. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 294; Cent. Dig. § 836; "Banks and Banking," Cent. Dig. §§ 1056–1059.

73 Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487, 22 Sup. Ct. 783, 46 L. Ed. 1005. Compare this case with the case of Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co.

HUGHES FED.PR.(2D ED.)-16

It is not enough, however, in order to confer a federal question, that some act of Congress or title claimed under the United States may be incidentally involved. The case must turn necessarily upon the construction of a federal question. This is illustrated by controversies arising out of patents and trade-marks. If the jurisdiction is invoked on the ground of an infringement, then a federal question is involved; but if, on the other hand, the controversy is simply over contracts arising out of grants of the right to sell patents, and turns upon the construction of these contracts between the parties, a federal question is not involved, though the subject of litigation is a patent, or trade-mark."

Nor is a federal question involved simply from the fact that suit is brought against a receiver appointed by a federal court. The basis of the suit itself must involve a federal question, and the mere fact that a federal receiver is sued is not sufficient to give jurisdiction.75

Nor is it sufficient to constitute a federal question that

v. Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U. S. 282, 22 Sup. Ct. 681, 46 L. Ed. 910, in order to ascertain how far the jurisdiction of the court is defeated by the defendant's pleading. The true distinction appears to be that if the claim of the plaintiff is bona fide and appears clearly upon his bill, and that claim is not formally admitted by the pleadings, the court has jurisdiction, though the facts in the case, on the plaintiff's own proof, should show that his claim is not well founded. But if the claim as set up by him is formally admitted on the pleadings, then there is no controversy between the parties involving a federal question, and the court may consider this as showing a want of federal jurisdiction. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 281, 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 820-825.

74 Pratt v. Paris Gaslight & Coke Co., 168 U. S. 255, 18 Sup. Ct. 62, 42 L. Ed. 458; Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U. S. 282, 22 Sup. Ct. 681, 46 L. Ed. 910; Baglin v. Cusenier Co., 221 U. S. 580, 31 Sup. Ct. 669, 55 L. Ed. 863; Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 364, 56 L. Ed. 645; The Fair v. Kohler Dle & Specialty Co., 228 U. S. 22, 33 Sup. Ct. 410, 57 L. Ed. -; post, p. 490. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 290-292; Cent. Dig. §§ 832-834.

75 Bausman v. Dixon, 173 U. S. 113, 19 Sup. Ct. 316, 43 L. Ed. 632 ; Gableman v. Peoria, D. & E. R. Co., 179 U. S. 335, 21 Sup. Ct. 171, 45 L. Ed. 220. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 295; Cent. Dig. §

the title in litigation traces back to the United States, where no question of the effect of the federal link in the title is involved, but merely conflicting questions of title between diverse claimants.76

SAME CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES-NATURAL

PERSONS

100. In suits involving over $3,000, the jurisdiction extends to cases involving controversies between citizens of different states. The word "citizen," in this connection, is not used in the political sense of a voter, but in the sense of being a permanently domiciled member or subject of a state. Citizenship of the state and of the United States must both concur.

In considering what is meant in the Constitution and statutes by "citizens of different states," the question will first be discussed as to natural persons.

The word "citizen" is not used in this connection in its political sense, or in reference to any political rights, like the right to vote. It is used in the sense of its original definition; that is, as an integral part of the membership of a state, or a subject of a state. It means those who have a permanent domicile in a state, and not those who may merely have a temporary residence there. The distinction between "domicile" and "residence" is well known in the law. The meaning of "domicile" is explained in Mitchell

76 St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 68 Fed. 2, 15 C. C. A. 167; Id., 18 Sup. Ct. 946, 42 L. Ed. 1212; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Soderberg, 188 U. S. 526, 23 Sup. Ct. 365, 47 L. Ed. 575; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 32 Sup. Ct. 704, 56 L. Ed. 1205. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 285;

Cent. Dig. §§ 827, 828.