Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1908

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley

211 U.S. 149 | 29 S. Ct. 42 | 53 L. Ed. 126 | 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1533

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes the well-pleaded-complaint rule: a federal question must appear in the plaintiff's own claim, not merely in an anticipated defense or response to that defense.

Background

Mr. and Mrs. Mottley had settled personal-injury claims against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad in 1871. As consideration for the settlement, the railroad agreed to give them free transportation for life. For decades, the railroad honored that agreement by issuing passes.

After Congress enacted the 1906 railroad-rate legislation, the railroad refused to renew the Mottleys' passes. The Mottleys, who were not diverse in citizenship from the railroad, sued in federal circuit court for specific performance. Their bill alleged that the federal statute either did not prohibit performance of their earlier settlement contract or, if it did, would violate the Fifth Amendment. The circuit court granted relief for the Mottleys, and the railroad appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the federal circuit court had federal-question jurisdiction over the Mottleys' suit.

Holding

No. The suit did not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States because the Mottleys' own cause of action was a state-law contract claim.

Reasoning

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court must examine the lower federal court's jurisdiction even when neither party challenges it. Here, there was no diversity of citizenship, so jurisdiction could rest only on the proposition that the suit arose under federal law.

A suit arises under federal law only when the plaintiff's properly pleaded statement of its own cause of action establishes that the claim is based on the Constitution or federal law. The Mottleys' affirmative claim was for enforcement of a contract to provide transportation; that claim did not itself depend on federal law.

The Mottleys invoked federal law only by anticipating the railroad's expected defense: that the 1906 Act prohibited the free passes. They then anticipated their own response, arguing that the Act did not apply to their contract or would be unconstitutional if it did. An anticipated federal defense, and an anticipated reply to that defense, cannot create federal-question jurisdiction.

The Court relied on prior cases applying this pleading rule, including Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank and Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co. Those decisions establish that a plaintiff may not obtain federal jurisdiction by pleading a likely defense before the defendant raises it.

Issue #2

Whether the 1906 Act made it unlawful for the railroad to perform its preexisting settlement contract to provide the Mottleys free transportation.

Holding

The Court did not decide the question because the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Reasoning

The parties had litigated whether the federal statute's prohibition on free passes and transportation at rates different from the filed tariff applied to a contract accepted in good faith before the Act's passage as settlement of a valid claim. But once the Court concluded that the case was not properly in federal court, it had no occasion to resolve that statutory issue.

Issue #3

Whether construing the 1906 Act to prohibit performance of the contract would violate the Fifth Amendment.

Holding

The Court did not decide the constitutional question because the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Reasoning

The Mottleys argued that, if the statute invalidated their settlement arrangement, the statute would violate the Fifth Amendment. That argument was only a proposed answer to the railroad's anticipated statutory defense, not an element of the Mottleys' own contract claim. Because jurisdiction was absent, the Court declined to reach the constitutional issue.