George Graves v. Thomas E. Sneed, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
George Graves v. Thomas E. Sneed, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (ohnd, 2023-12-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
N.D. Ohio · 2023 · confidence medium
Ohio Feb. 10, 1997) (“One district court has no such jurisdiction over another district court”) (citing Graves v. Sneed, 541 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1976)); Elliott v. Chairman of the U.S. Merit Sys.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sly v. DFCU FINANCIAL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
E.D. Mich. · 2006 · confidence medium
“The United States district courts are not courts of general jurisdiction.” Graves v. Sneed, 541 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir.1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kevin Gross, as Receiver for Hougland Barge Line, Inc., a Dissolved Delaware Corporation v. Frances M. Hougland
6th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See Owen Equipment and Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 372 , 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2401 , 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978); Graves v. Sneed, 541 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir.1976); In re Carter, 618 F.2d 1093,1098 (5th Cir.1980) (“[D]ue regard for the constitutional allocation of powers between the state and federal systems requires a federal court scrupulously to confine itself to the jurisdiction conferred on it by Congress and permitted by the Constitution”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Seven Springs Apartments, Phase II
Bankr. N.D. Ga. · 1983 · confidence medium
See also Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 , 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2403 , 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978); Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 187 , 63 S.Ct. 1019, 1022 , 87 L.Ed. 1339 (1943); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233-234 , 43 S.Ct. 79, 82-83 , 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); Graves v. Sneed, 541 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1093 , 97 S.Ct. 1106 , 51 L.Ed.2d 539 (1977); Jorden v. Metropolitan Utilities District, 498 F.2d 514, 516 (8th Cir.1974); Markham v. Newport News, 292 F.2d 711, 713 (4th Cir.1961); Eastern Federal Corp. v. Wasson, 525 F.Supp.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Conley
Bankr. M.D. Tenn. · 1983 · confidence medium
See also Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 , 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2403 , 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978); Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 187 , 63 S.Ct. 1019, 1022 , 87 L.Ed. 1339 (1943); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233-234 , 43 S.Ct. 79, 82 , 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); Graves v. Sneed, 541 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir.1976), cert. denied 429 U.S. 1093 , 97 S.Ct. 1106 , 51 L.Ed.2d 539 (1977); Jorden v. Metropolitan Utilities District, 498 F.2d 514, 516 (8th Cir.1974); Markham v. City of Newport News, 292 F.2d 711, 713 (4th Cir.1961); Eastern Federal Corp. v. Wasson, 525 F.S…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Good v. Krauss
E.D. Tenn. · 1978 · confidence medium
Graves v. Sneed, C.A. 6th (1976), 541 F.2d 159, 161 [2], certiorari denied (1977), 429 U.S. 1093 , 97 S.Ct. 1106 , 51 L.Ed.2d 539 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Printing Specialties & Paper Products District Council No. 2 v. International Printing & Graphic Communications Union
E.D. Tenn. · 1978 · confidence medium
Graves v. Sneed, C.A. 6th (1976), 541 F.2d 159, 161 [2], certiorari denied (1977), 429 U.S. 1093 , 97 S.Ct. 1106 , 51 L.Ed.2d 539 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cline v. Richards
E.D. Tenn. · 1977 · confidence medium
Graves v. Sneed, C.A. 6th (1976), 541 F.2d 159, 161 [2], The Congress has provided that the United States “ * * * district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of *44 interest and costs, and is between * * * citizens of different [s]tates. * * *" 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Citizens & Southern National Bank v. Auer
E.D. Tenn. · 1977 · confidence medium
Graves v. Sneed, C.A. 6th (1976), 541 F.2d 159, 161 [2].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lemmons v. Tranbraw
E.D. Tenn. · 1976 · confidence medium
They have no jurisdiction except as prescribed by Congress pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. * * ” Graves v. Sneed, C.A.6th (1976), 541 F.2d 159, 161 [2], Thus, “ * * * [whenever it appears * * * that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action. * * * ” Rule 12(h)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 42 U.S.C. “ * * * § 1983 is of only limited scope.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hale v. McCall
E.D. Tenn. · 1976 · confidence medium
Graves v. Sneed, C.A. 6th (1976), 541 F.2d 159, 161 [2], Therefore, in this action in which its jurisdiction is sought to be invoked on the basis of the diverse citizenship of the parties and the jurisdictional amount, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1), this Court must “ ‘* * * scrupulously confine * * its jurisdiction to the precise limits which the pertinent federal statutes have defined.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Linda Kay Sullivan v. George Brown
6th Cir. · 1976 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, Graves v. Sneed, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976); Ohio Inns, Inc. v. Nye, 542 F.2d 673 (6th Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." James W. Smith v. Charles Martin
6th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Graves v. Sneed, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976), where Chief Judge Phillips stated, “This case involves yet another effort to make a federal question out of litigation where exclusive jurisdiction is in State courts.” AFFIRMED.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George GRAVES Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Thomas E. SNEED Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
75-1746.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Sep 1, 1976.
541 F.2d 159
Wilson G. Graves, New York City, Jackson, Tenn., for plaintiffs-appellants., Thomas F. Turley, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert M. Williams, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., for F. H. A., John W. Norris, Brownsville, Tenn., for Rawls & McCools.
Phillips, McCree, Green.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.

This case involves yet another effort to make a federal question out of litigation where exclusive jurisdiction is in State courts. Basically it is a traditional action in equity — to have deeds declared to be mortgages, to obtain an accounting and to compel the reconveyance of certain real estate to plaintiffs. Chief District Judge Bailey Brown dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, but without prejudice. We affirm.

Appellants contend that they are the owners of two tracts of land in Haywood County, Tennessee; that in December 1947 they mortgaged the land by executing a deed of trust to secure a promissory note payable to the Farmers Home Administration in annual installments over a period of forty years; that in March 1961, for the purpose of maintaining a current status on payments due on the note, they made an oral arrangement with defendant C. A. Rawls, whereby Rawls would advance the installments as they became due and payable and would continue to do so until plaintiffs would be in a financial position to resume payments on their own behalf; that thereafter, at the instance of Rawls, plaintiffs executed two documents in the form of deeds, conveying portions of the land to Rawls as security for the installments advanced by him; that Rawls prepaid the entire balance due on the indebtedness; that the lien provided by the original deed of trust was discharged by a release executed by the Farmers Home Administration; and that the release was executed and recorded without the consent of plaintiffs.

The complaint prayed for cancellation of the deeds to Rawls, which are averred to be security instruments, not deeds; for an accounting; for ejectment; and for $100,-000 in damages.

The original complaint averred jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The District Court correctly held that there is no diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiffs and some of the defendants are citizens of Tennessee. Plaintiffs then sought to amend so as to aver jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (the Federal Tort Claims Act). We agree with Chief Judge Brown that § 1331 does not[*161] confer jurisdiction under the averments of the complaint because no construction of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States could be determinative of this litigation. We also agree that no jurisdiction is conferred by the Federal Tort Claims Act. The District Court was correct in holding that the acceptance of a prepayment on a loan from the record owner of title to the land would not give rise to a federal cause of action against the Farmers Home Administration.

The United States district courts are not courts of general jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction except as prescribed by Congress pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182, 187, 63 S.Ct. 1019, 87 L.Ed. 1339 (1943); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U.S. 165, 25 S.Ct. 6, 49 L.Ed. 142 (1904); The Mayor v. Cooper, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 247, 252, 18 L.Ed. 851 (1867); Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441, 448, 12 L.Ed. 1147 (1850); Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 7, 9, 1 L.Ed. 718 (1799); Steckel v. Lurie, 185 F.2d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 1950); Fisch v. General Motors, 169 F.2d 266 (6th Cir. 1948), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 902, 69 S.Ct. 405, 93 L.Ed. 436 (1949).

Jurisdiction to declare a deed to Tennessee lands to be a mortgage lies in the State Chancery Courts. As stated in Gibson’s Suits in Chancery, § 450(3) (5th Ed. 1955):

Upon a bill being filed to have a deed absolute on its face, declared to be a mere mortgage, or security for a debt, a Court of Chancery will allow the complainant to show the truth of his allegation by parol testimony. So, a complainant may upon a bill being filed for that purpose, show by parol evidence, that when a deed absolute on its face was executed, there was coupled with it on parol the right to repurchase or right to repay the purchase-money and have a re-conveyance.

We affirm the judgment of the District Court on the grounds that no federal question is presented, but without prejudice to any rights the plaintiffs may have to proceed in the State courts of Tennessee.