Page images
PDF
EPUB

amount, which the plaintiff had contracted to pay in cash upon an exchange of property.23

In a suit to restrain the unlawful use by a railroad of a right of way over plaintiff's land, the damage to the whole tract as well as the value of the land taken for the right of way is to be considered; 24 but in a suit to enjoin the use, as a railroad, of a highway, it was held: that the value of the matter in dispute was that of the use of the highway for the railway company.25 Where a suit was brought by a city against a telegraph company, to recover $1,772 for street rentals for the maintenance of defendant's poles and wires, and the bill prayed for the payment of the rentals or forfeiture of defendant's right in the streets, and that its occupation thereof should cease; it was held: that the matter in controversy was not necessarily limited to the amount of the money sought to be recovered; and hence that a certified petition of removal, stating that the value of the matter in controversy was more than the statutory amount, showed that the amount in controversy was sufficient to confer Federal jurisdiction.26

In a suit to enjoin the destruction of property, the value of that threatened with destruction not of that already destroyed is the jurisdictional test.27

In an action to abate a nuisance, it has been held: that the value of the article sought to be abated, or of the acts sought to be enjoined, is the test of the jurisdiction.28 It has been said: that the amount involved, for jurisdictional purposes, in a suit to enjoin the maintenance of a nuisance, cannot be measured solely by the damage suffered by complainant; nor by the actual outlay of money, which defendant would be required to make if the relief should be granted; but the value of the right, of which he is

23 Kirby v. Am. Soda Fountain Co., 194 U. S. 141, 48 L. ed. 911.

24 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Mills, C. C. A., 222 Fed. 481.

25 Oleson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 44 Fed. 1.

26 Memphis v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., C. C. A., 145 Fed. 602.

27 Tri-City Central Trades Council v. American Steel Foundries, C. C. A., 238 Fed. 728.

28 Mississippi & Mo. R. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485, 17 L. ed. 311 (a railroad bridge); Whitman v. Hubbell, 30 Fed. 81 (an awning, where the value of the right to use the awning was held to be the test); Rainey v. Herbert, C. C. A., 55 Fed. 443 (coke ovens); Am. Smelting & Refining Co. v. Godfrey, C. C. A., 158 Fed. 225, 14 Ann. Cas. 8.

sought to be deprived, is to be taken into consideration.29 Where there was no allegation of the value of the structures sought to be abated, which were obstructions to navigation; and the damages alleged to have been suffered because of the same, prior to the beginning of the suit, were less than the jurisdictional sum; it was held, that the jurisdiction did not appear.30 In a suit. by a telephone company to restrain the erection of poles and wires so as to injure complainant's line it was held that the criterion was the value of the right of complainant to be free from wrongful interference by defendant with the operation of its line and the conduct of its business; not the expense to defendant of the removal of the latter's interfering poles and wires.31

In a suit to enjoin the defendants from continuing a business, in violation of a contract with complainant, it was held: that the court had jurisdiction, where the value of the plant owned and operated by them, and the amount of their annual business, exIceeded such amount.32

In a suit to enjoin the Director General from the removal of machine shops, proof that such removal would cause a saving of $400.00 a month was held to establish that the value of the matter in dispute exceeded $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs.33

In a suit in the nature of an interpleader, the pecuniary test of the jurisdiction is the amount claimed by the defendant, whom the complainant seeks to enjoin, not the amount which complaint admits to be due and seeks to deposit in court.34

§ 14. Value of the matter in dispute upon taxpayers' bills. In a suit to enjoin the collection of a tax, the amount of the tax, not the value of the property which the defendant threatens to seize,1 nor of that, the title to which is clouded, is the test of

29 Amelia Milling Co. v. Tennes see Coal, Iron & R. Co., 123 Fed. 811.

30 Kenyon v. Knipe, 46 Fed. 309. 31 Glenwood Light and Water Co. v. Mutual Light, Heat and Power Co.

32 American Fisheries Co. v. Lennen, 118 Fed. 869.

33 Nueces Valley Town-Site Co. v. McAdoo, 257 Fed. 143.

34 Hayward & Clark v. McDonald, C. C. A., 192 Fed. 890. But see infra, §§ 157, 158.

§ 14. 1 Washington & G. R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 146 U. S. 227, 232, 36 L. ed. 951, 953; King v. Wilson, Fed. Cas. No. 7,810 (1 Dill. 555); Linehan Railway Transfer Co. v. Pendergrass, 70 Fed. 1, 16 C. C. A. 585, 36 U. S. App. 48; Eachus v. Hartwell, 112 Fed. 564;

jurisdiction. But, it has been held: that, where an injunction is sought against the collection of an annual tax or license fee, imposed upon a franchise or upon the right to exercise a certain occupation, resistance to the payment of which would result in the destruction of the plaintiff's business; the value of the right to exemption, including the threatened damage to this business, not the amount of the tax or license fee which has accrued, is to be considered. Upon a bill to enjoin an income tax upon a salary annexed to an office, claimed to be exempt; the specific tax sought to be enforced, not the right to exemption, was held to be the test. It has been held, upon a bill to enjoin the collection of a land tax, filed by a corporation claiming an exemption; that the amount of the tax claimed to be already due was the sole test, since it could not be assumed that the assessment for subsequent years would be for a like amount.5 The cases conflict as to whether, in a suit to enjoin a municipality from issuing bond.› or otherwise incurring indebtedness, the pecuniary test of 1 jurisdiction is the amount of the tax, to which the complainant would be thereby subjected, or the whole debt, the creation of which complainant seeks to prevent. In a suit to enjoin a municipality from issuing bonds, to an amount charged to be in

Field v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 117 Fed. 925; Turner v. Jackson Lumber Co., C. C. A., 159 Fed. 926; Risley v. City of Utica, 168 Fed. 737; Everglades D. League v. Napoleon B. Broward D. Dist., 253 Fed. 246.

2 Douglas Company v. Stone, 191 U. S. 557, 24 S. Ct. 843, 48 L. ed. 801; s. c., affirming 110 Fed. 812; Eachus v. Hartwell, 112 Fed. 564; Purnell v. Page, 128 Fed. 496; Tur ner v. Jackson Lumber Co., C. C. A. 159 Fed. 923.

3 American Fertilizing Co. V. Board of Agriculture, 43 Fed. 609, 11 L.R.A. 179; Western Union Tel. Co. v. City Council, 56 Fed. 419; Humes v. City of Fort Smith, Ark., 93 Fed. 857; Southern Exp. Co. v. City of Ensley, 116 Fed 756; Hutchinson v. Beckham, 118 Fed.

399, 55 C. C. A. 333; Berryman ́v. Board of Trustees of Whitman College, 222 U. S. 334; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. City of Mobile, 179 Fed. 955; Jewel Tea Co. v. Lee's Summit, Mo., 198 Fed. 532.

4 Purnell v. Page, 128 Fed. 496. 5 Citizens' Bank of Louisiana v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319, 41 L. ed. 451. Contra, Board of Trustees of Whitman College v. Berryman, 156 Fed. 112.

6 In the following cases, the amount of the plaintiff's tax was held to be the test: El Paso Water Co. v. El Paso, 152 U. S. 157, 159, 38 L. ed. 395, 397; Colvin v. Jacksonville, 158 U. S. 456, 460; Adams v. Douglas County, Fed. Cas. No. 52; McCahon, 235, 1 Kan. 627; Murphy v. East Portland, 42 Fed. 308.

excess of the constitutional limit of its indebtedness; the value of the power of the city to issue such bonds, not the tax to which the complainant would be thereby subject, was held to be the value of the matter in dispute. It has been held: that upon a taxpayer's bill, to enjoin the execution of a contract for a public work; the value of the contract, and not the amount of the tax complainant might be required to pay in consequence, was the amount in dispute.

§ 15. Value of the matter in dispute upon creditors' bills. It has been held: that, upon a creditor's bill, the value of the complainant's claim, not the value of the property sought to be reached, nor the value of the claim, payment of which he seeks to enjoin, is that of the matter in dispute, when the creditor sues in his own right alone; but that when the creditor sues on behalf of himself and the other creditors, for the administration of a trust fund, or to collect money or other property applicable to the payment of its debts, the amount of such fund or property determines the question of jurisdiction. In one case the value of immature claims was added to that of those already matured, when determining the jurisdictional amount."

§ 16. Value of the matter in dispute upon stockholders' bills. It has been held: that upon stockholders' bills, to enforce causes

7 Ottuma v. City Water Supply Co., C. C. A., 59 L.R.A. 604, 119 Fed. 315; City of Helena v. Helena Waterworks Co., C. C. A., 173 Fed. 18; Larabee v. Dolley, 175 Fed. 365.

See Brown v. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389, 11 Sup. Ct. 308, 34 L. ed. 987. But see Risley v. City of Utica, 168 Fed. 737.

8 Johnston v. City of Pittsburgh, 106 Fed. 753.

$ 15. 1 Werner v. Murphy, 60 Fed. 769; Alkire Gr. Co. v. Richesin, 91 Fed. 79; Cowell v. City Water Supply Co., 121 Fed. 53; reversing s. c., 96 Fed. 769; Casey v. Baker, 212 Fed. 247. See Bruce v. Manchester & K. R. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514, 29 L. ed. 990; Estes v. Gunter, 121 U. S. 183, 30 L. ed. 884;

Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366, 34 L. ed. 706; Put-in-Bay Waterworks etc., Co. v. Ryan, 181 U. S. 409. Cf. Huff v. Bidwell, C. C. A., 151 Fed. 563.

2 Smithson 593.

v. Hubbell, 81 Fed. But see Taxpayers' Bills, infra, § 161g.

3 Putnam v. Timothy, D. G. & C. Co., 79 Fed. 454; Jones v. Mutual Fidelity Co., 123 Fed. 506. See Alsop v. Conway, C. C. A., 188 Fed. 568. But see Bruce v. Manchester & K. R. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514, 29 L. ed. 990.

4 Conway v. Owensboro Sav. Bank & Tr. Co., 165 Fed. 822, to enforce the liability of stockholders.

5 Johnston v. Straus, 26 Fed. 57.

1

of action belonging to corporations; or to enjoin actions, which are ultra vires; 2 or to protect the assets of the company from waste, or for the appointment of a receiver of the corporate assets, or for the distribution of the same, the value of the matter in dispute is that of the corporate right sought to be enforced, or of the amount of loss which the corporation would suffer from the threatened unlawful action, or the value of the assets of the corporation, as the case may be; not the value of the plaintiff's stock. In a suit to compel the issue to complainant of a certificate of corporate stock, and the cancellation of one issued to another; it was held, that the value of the matter in dispute was at least the par value of the stock, where there were circumstances tending to show that the defendants had valued it at a higher sum.6 But in a suit to compel a transfer of stock and payment of the depreciation in its market value on the day of the demand for transfer and the highest market value between such day and judgment, it appearing that the reason for the refusal was to protect the corporation from liability for an inheritance tax; it was held that the amount of such tax was the pecuniary test of the jurisdiction." There can be no pecuniary valuation of the matter in dispute in a suit by a stockholder to compel the corporation to allow him to inspect its books and records.8

§ 16. 1 Hill v. Glasgow R. Co., 41 Fed. 610. See § 145, infra. Contra, Massa v. Cutting, 30 Fed. 1; Harvey v. Raleigh & G. R. Co., 89 Fed. 115.

2 McKee v. Chautauqua Assembly, 124 Fed. 808; Larabee v. Dolley, 175 Fed. 365; Howard v. Nat. Telephone Co., 182 Fed. 215, where a preferred stockholder sued to compel the rescission of a transfer of a majority of the common stock, alleging that his stock was of the par value of $3,100 and that this and the other preferred stock was threatened with destruction in value by the illegal control of the assets obtained by the transferee of the common stock.

3 Carpenter v. Knollwood Ceme. tery, 198 Fed. 297.

4 Towle v. Am. Bldg., L. & Inv. Soc., 60 Fed. 131; Robinson v. W. Va. Loan Co., 90 Fed. 770; Taylor v. Decatur M. & L. Co., 112 Fed. 449; Jacobs v. Mexican Sugar Co., 130 Fed. 589; Re Cleland, 218 U. S. 120, 54 L. ed. 962.

5 Kent v. Honsinger, 167 Fed. 619. 6 Ryan v. Seaboard & R. R. Co., 89 Fed. 397, 404.

7 Jessup v. Chicago, & N. W. Ry. Co., 188 Fed. 931.

8 Whitney v. Am. Shipbuilding Co., 197 Fed. 777.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »