Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter
177 U.S. 505 (1900)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A suit brought in support of an adverse claim to a mining patent under federal statutes is not, in itself, a suit arising under the laws of the United States sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction only exists if the case requires the interpretation or construction of the U.S. Constitution or a federal law.
Facts:
- Shoshone Mining Company and a group of individuals led by Rutter asserted competing claims to the right of possession of the same parcel of mineral land.
- One party initiated the process to obtain a federal patent (a land deed from the government) for its mining claim.
- The opposing party filed an 'adverse claim' with the federal land office, formally contesting the patent application and asserting its own superior right to the land.
- The legal dispute centered on determining which party had the superior right to possess and mine the land, a question that could potentially be resolved by applying federal mining laws, state statutes, or local miners' customs and rules.
Procedural Posture:
- Rutter and others filed an adverse suit (Case No. 81) against Shoshone Mining Company in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Idaho.
- Shoshone Mining Company filed a separate suit (Case No. 103) against Rutter and others in the state district court for Shoshone County, Idaho.
- Rutter, the defendant in the state court action, removed Case No. 103 to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Idaho.
- The federal Circuit Court consolidated the two cases for trial.
- The losing party in the consolidated case appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lawsuit authorized by federal statute to resolve an adverse mining claim (an 'adverse suit') automatically arise under the laws of the United States, thereby granting federal courts jurisdiction regardless of the parties' citizenship?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brewer
No. A suit authorized by federal statute to resolve an adverse mining claim does not automatically arise under the laws of the United States for jurisdictional purposes. For federal question jurisdiction to exist, the suit must substantially involve a dispute over the construction or effect of the Constitution or a federal law, not merely be authorized by one. An 'adverse suit' is a procedural mechanism Congress created to determine the right of possession, but the underlying legal question may depend entirely on local customs, state statutes of limitations, or simple questions of fact, none of which present a federal question. Because Congress did not specify that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, it intended for the competency of the court to be determined by existing jurisdictional rules, which require either diversity of citizenship or a genuine federal question.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice McKenna
Mr. Justice McKenna dissented but did not provide a written opinion in the reported case.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of federal question jurisdiction by distinguishing between a cause of action authorized by federal law and one that truly 'arises under' federal law. It clarifies that the substantive legal dispute, not the statutory origin of the right to sue, is determinative for jurisdiction. This precedent prevents federal courts from being inundated with property disputes, particularly in the western states, that are fundamentally local in nature even though they originate from the federal process of land disposal. It reinforces the principle that state courts are competent and presumed to correctly apply federal law when it is relevant to a case.
Unlock the full brief for Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter