OLIVER AMERICAN TRADING COMPANY, INC.
v.
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF MEXICO AND NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF MEXICO

U.S. | 1924-04-07
No. 662
264 U.S. 440 Supreme Court of the United States (1924) Caution
Also reported at: 68 L. Ed. 778 · 44 S. Ct. 390 · SCDB 1923-106 · 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2523
Cited by 22 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Oliver American Trading Company sued Mexico and Mexican National Railways in New York state court, attaching property within the state; Mexico moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court held that the question of sovereign immunity is a matter of general law applicable equally to state and federal courts, not a federal question that implicates the district court's jurisdiction as a federal court, and therefore transferred the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals rather than deciding it on the merits.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brandéis

Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Oliver American Trading Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, brought this suit, in the Supreme Court of New York, against the United States of Mexico and the National Railways of Mexico. Service was made by attaching tangible personal property and credits within the State alleged to belong to the defendants and summons. In the state court, the Government of Mexico, appearing specially, moved seasonably that the attachment be quashed and that the suit be dismissed. Before the motion was heard, the case was removed on its petition to the federal court for southern New York. There, Mexico, again appearing specially, procured a rule that the plaintiff show cause why the attachment should not be vacated and the suit dismissed, upon the ground that it is “ an independent sovereign nation, .. . . immune from process of the courts, except upon its consent,” The plaintiff asserted that at the time when the suit was begun and when the rule was returnable Mexico had not been recognized by our Government; and contended that, being a non-recognized foreign government, it was suable as a foreign corporation under subdivision 7 of § 7 of the Civil Practice Act of New York. It was conceded that National Railways of Mexico is merely a name for the system of railroads controlled and operated by the Mexican Government. After the hearing on the motion, but before entry of the judgment below, Mexico was duly recognized by the United States and diplomatic relations between the two governments were resumed. Thereupon, and solely upon this ground, the District Court held that Mexico was entitled to immunity from suit in the courts of the United States of America, unless upon its own consent; granted the motion to vacate the attachment and dismiss the suit; and issued the certificate of a jurisdictional question provided for in § 238 of the Judicial Code. Here, the defendants in error move to dismiss this writ of error for want of jurisdiction in this Court, on the ground that the case below did not present the question of jurisdiction of the district court as a federal court.

The fact that the District Judge issued the certificate does not relieve this Court from the duty of determining for itself whether the question which was certified is in truth one of the jurisdiction of the lower court as a federal court. Bogart v. Southern Pacific Co., 228 U. S. 137, 144; Smith v. Apple, ante 274. Such a question is presented whenever there is in controversy the power of the court, as defined or limited by the Constitution or statutes of the United States, to hear and determine the cause. The Pesaro, 255 U. S. 216, 218. It is not presented where the question of jurisdiction to be decided turns upon matters of general law applicable alike to actions brought in other tribunals. De Rees v. Costaguta, 254 U. S. 166, 173. The question of sovereign immunity is such a question of general law applicable as fully to suits in the state courts as to those prosecuted in the courts of the United States.1

As the writ of error from this Court was improvidently allowed, th'e case must be transferred to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Section 238(a) of the Judicial Code, Act of September 14, 1922, c. 305, 42 Stat. 837.

Case Transferred.

Cases like McNeill v. Southern Ry. Co., 202 U. S. 543, and Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Andrews, 216 U. S. 165, in which questions of the immunity of state officers from suit are considered by this Court on direct appeal under § 238, come here by that method because of the constitutional question involved. Compare Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28, 37, 38.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Smyth v. Asphalt Belt Ry. Co., 267 U.S. 326 (U.S. 1925)
    …federal law, Louie v. United States, 254 U. S. 548; Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc., 263 U. S. 291, 304-308, or whether a power possessed by the court should be exercised, Smith v. Apple, 264 U. S. 274; Oliver American Trading Co., Inc. v. Mexico, 264 U. S. 440, then the appeal was properly taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The proceedings in the District Court, including its opinion and decree, and the briefs filed in this Court, show that at no time was the jurisdiction of the trial court as a fede…
  • Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. Pa. R.R. Co., 274 U.S. 181 (U.S. 1927)
    …ck of-jurisdiction, as follows: “ Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this Court on the authority of Transportes Maritimes Do Estado v. Almeida, 265 U. S. 104, 105, and Oliver American Trading Company v. Government of the United States of Mexico, 264 U. S. 440, 442." This is a motion, to set aside the dismissals and to substitute therefor orders transferring them to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Timken Roller Bearing Company is a corporation of Ohio engaged in the business of m…
    1 / 2
  • Oliver Am. Trading Co., Inc. v. Gov't of the United States of Mexico, 5 F.2d 659 (2d Cir. 1924)
    …with section 238 (a) of the Judicial Code, as added by Act Sept. 14, 1922, e. 305, 42 Stat. 837 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1215a), which may also be found in the margin.2 The Supreme Court (Oliver American Trading Co. v. United States of Mexico, 264 U. S. 440, 44 S. Ct. 390, 68 L. Ed. 778), holding that the ease was improperly before it, said: “The fact that the District Judge issued the certificate does not relieve this court from the duty of determining for itself whether the question which was certifi…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw