City of Anchorage, a Corporation v. William A. Hilton

In this case there is only the question of whether the District Court erred in dismissing a complaint by the City of Anchorage against William A. Hilton for lack of jurisdiction.

The facts were stipulated:

Notwithstanding this statement, this Court is hampered by the fact that the pleadings were not brought up. It is doubtful whether Hilton is sued as an individual, an officer of the District Court, or as a representative of the United States. There is no clarification of the present status of the money. All these facts are essential to a correct determination by the District Court of the question of jurisdiction.

Inhere is the statement that Austin “caused to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the District the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) in full payment of the fine so imposed upon him by the said District Court,” and the statement that the “clerk of the court refused and continues to refuse to pay the sum or any part thereof to” the City. There is also a patent ambiguity in the stipulation.

The City is said to have “demanded that the defendant remit or pay” the sum. Whether “defendant” is Hilton or Austin is shrouded in mystery. If it was Austin, the City…