Scribd
Upload
141 views1 page

Granville Hinton v. William Roberts, Victor A. Roberts, and Martin Flamm, 243 F.2d 169, 2d Cir. (1957)

The plaintiff appealed a case that was dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff had attempted to establish federal jurisdiction by alleging that the case involved federal constitutional and civil rights issues regarding property owned by a church. However, the court found that the real controversy was merely a local dispute over title and possession of New York real estate, and that attempting to allege federal issues was an artificial attempt to create federal jurisdiction where none existed. The dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction was affirmed.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
141 views1 page

Granville Hinton v. William Roberts, Victor A. Roberts, and Martin Flamm, 243 F.2d 169, 2d Cir. (1957)

The plaintiff appealed a case that was dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff had attempted to establish federal jurisdiction by alleging that the case involved federal constitutional and civil rights issues regarding property owned by a church. However, the court found that the real controversy was merely a local dispute over title and possession of New York real estate, and that attempting to allege federal issues was an artificial attempt to create federal jurisdiction where none existed. The dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction was affirmed.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

243 F.

2d 169

Granville HINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,


v.
William ROBERTS, Victor A. Roberts, and Martin Flamm,
Defendant-Appellees.
No. 260, Docket 24363.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.


Argued March 13, 1957.
Decided April 12, 1957.

Kenneth L. Shorter, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.


Victor A. Roberts, New York City, for defendants-appellees.
Before HINCKS, STEWART and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.

In the complaint, jurisdiction is ostensibly laid on federal questions allegedly


arising under the Constitution and the federal civil rights acts, 42 U.S.C.A.
1981 et seq.; 18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242, and under 18 U.S.C.A. 1705.
However, the facts alleged show only controversy as to the title and the right to
possession of New York real estate and appurtenances allegedly owned by a
church of which the plaintiff is the alleged minister and as to the legality of acts
of the defendants in evicting the plaintiff therefrom. Diversity of citizenship
was not alleged. Thus the real controversy was essentially local. The assertion
that the controversy was one arising under the laws of the United States is
clearly an artificial attempt to create federal jurisdiction.

The action was rightly dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

You might also like