may claim to be entitled to such money or property * * *.' (Emphasis added.)
If Congress had intended that this Court should have jurisdiction over an interpleader action based on a federal question without regard to diversity of citizenship, it would have been a simple matter for them to have added the requisite words when they amended and revised this section in 1948.
However, they did not do so, and the above quoted portion of the interpleader statute shows that diversity of citizenship must exist between two or more adverse claimants before this Court can have jurisdiction. The presence of a federal question will not alter this requirement.
Secondly, even assuming that Section 1335 of Title 28 does give this Court jurisdiction of an interpleader action involving a federal question without diverse citizenship among the adverse parties, this action does not involve a federal question within the import of Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
Section 301(a) provides that, 'Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization * * *, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, * * * without regard to the citizenship of the parties.'
A search of the legislative history of Section 301 reveals that Congress intended only to hold management and labor equally responsible for the enforcement of collective bargaining agreements, and to give the district courts jurisdiction over any violation of such agreements. I could find nothing to indicate that this section was intended to give jurisdiction over suits for violation of any other type of contract into which a labor union might enter. See Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 94, 151, 221, 279, 297, 336-337, 421-424, 569-570, 873, 1074, 1133, 1145-1146, 1483, 1497, 1654; 1 CCH Labor Law Para. 3350.05.
So far as Sun Ship, the employer, is concerned, it has not violated any contract. It is ready, willing and able to pay the checked-off dues as soon as it knows who is the lawful payee.
As between National Union or Loyal Local Union and Disaffiliated Local Union, the contract in this case is the contract of Local Union's affiliation with National Union. Any dispute over the rights and liabilities of the parties to this contract is an internal dispute between various groups of what is or was the same labor organization. This is a family squabble. Serious differences have arisen that concern the rights of various members of the same family and no one else. Under these circumstances, district courts of the United States have no authority to assume jurisdiction.
Obviously, this dispute did not arise out of a violation of any collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, Section 301 cannot give this Court jurisdiction of this case. Snoots et al. v. Vejlupek et al., D.C., 87 F.Supp. 503; cf. Kriss et al. v. White et al., D.C., 87 F.Supp. 734.
National Union and Loyal Local Union contend that Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., gives this Court jurisdiction. Rule 82 specifically states that the Rules cannot extend the jurisdiction of the United States district courts.
Neither National Union nor Loyal Local Union could successfully sue Disaffiliated Local Union in a federal court for the relief they now seek in this action. That Sun Ship filed this action for interpleader will not aid them now; they should not be allowed to do indirectly what they cannot do directly.
Jurisdiction is fundamental and may be questioned, even by the Court on its own motion, at any stage in the proceedings.
The motion of the plaintiffs in interpleader for summary judgment is hereby denied.
Upon the Court's own motion, the complaint of Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company and all subsequent proceedings are hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.