had shipped some packages of wines and brandies into the State. They were seized by some of the defendants for an alleged violation of its laws. Another of the defendants subsequent to the seizure, and with knowledge of its wrongful nature, received the packages into his custody, and refused to return them when demanded. The declaration alleged that the malicions trespass of the defendants and their continuation in the wrongful detention of the liquors had greatly damaged the plaintiff's business. It was further alleged that the goods had been seized wrongfully, knowingly, wilfully and maliciously, with intent to oppress, humiliate and intimidate the plaintiff, and make him afraid to rely upon the Constitution and laws of the United States. Judgment was prayed for the value of the goods, which was said to be $1,000, and for $10,000 damages. The Supreme Court said that this was nothing more than an action of trover; that in South Carolina the measure of damage in that kind of action is the value of the property converted; consequential damages are not recoverable. The amount claimed by the plaintiff, omitting the consequential damages, was, therefore, less than the sum necessary to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction.1 163. In an Action Ex Contractu for Liquidated Damages the Amount in Controversy is the Liquidated Sum. -In an action ex contractu upon a liquidated claim, the Court has no jurisdiction unless such liquidated sum exceeds $3,000. It makes no difference what damage the plaintiff may demand if his declaration shows that the amount in controversy cannot exceed a sum which is below that required to give the Court jurisdiction. At a time when the statute authorized the Circuit Court to take jurisdiction of controversies in which the amount involved exceeded $500, and when it limited the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, to cases in which $2,000 was involved, there was an action in which the writ 1 and the original declaration showed that the amount in controversy did not exceed $1.000. The evidence offered at the trial by the plaintiff proved that it did not exceed $700. The plaintiff at the close of his declaration claimed $2,100 damages. It was held that the amount in controversy was $1,000.1 164. The Amount Recovered Does Not Determine Jurisdiction. It was so ruled because where the amount in controversy, as it has been defined, is sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction, it is immaterial on the jurisdictional question that the trial may show that the defendant does not owe the plaintiff so much. The amount in controversy is that which the plaintiff seeks to make the defendant pay; not the amount which the judgment says he must pay. In another one of the dispensary cases from South Carolina suit was brought for a malicious trespass. The declaration averred such facts as, if true, would have justified the jury in awarding punitive damages. The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, in spite of the fact that the plaintiff recovered only $300.1 165. Jurisdiction May Exist Although Plaintiff's Declaration Shows That There May Be a Defense to His Claim. The mere fact that the plaintiff's declaration on its face shows that there may be a defense, and even a perfect defense, to so large a part of his claim as will leave the balance below the jurisdictional amount, is not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction. Thus, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska, a citizen of Ohio, to whom a Nebraska corporation was indebted in the sum of $2,100, only $500 of which was due at the time the action was instituted, brought suit and applied for an attachment on the ground that the debtor was conveying his property with intent to defraud his creditors. It was objected that there being but Lee vs. Watson, 1 Wall. 337. 1 Scott vs. Donald, 165 U. S. 5S. $500 due, the amount in controversy did not exceed $2,000. A Nebraska statute provided that where a debtor had made a fraudulent conveyance, a creditor might bring an action on a claim before it became due and have an attachment against the debtor's property. The Supreme Court said: "The fact of a valid defense to a cause of action, although apparent on the face of the petition, does not diminish the amount that is claimed, nor determine what is the matter in dispute; for who can say in advance that that defense will be presented by the defendant, or, if presented, sustained by the Court?"1 The Court was careful to add: "We do not mean that a claim, evidently fictitious and alleged simply to create a jurisdictional amount, is sufficient to give jurisdiction."***"It may be laid down as a general proposition that no mere pretense as to the amount in dispute will avail to create jurisdiction. But here there was no pretense. The plaintiff, in evident good faith and relying upon the express language of a statute, asserted a right to recover over $2,000." 166. If Plaintiff Recovers Less Than $500 He Cannot Be Given Costs and May Have to Pay Them.Congress has discouraged the bringing in the Federal Courts of suits in which it is not likely that any considerable recovery can be had, by providing in section 968 of the Revised Statutes, that when a plaintiff or petitioner in equity, other than the United States, recovers less than the sum or value of $500, exclusive of costs, he shall not be allowed, but at the discretion of the Court may be adjudged, to pay costs. 167. What is the Amount in Controversy When an Injunction Is Sought?-Where the suit is in equity and the relief prayed is an injunction, the amount in controversy is ordinarily the value of the right or thing which the complainant seeks to have enjoined. It is not the damage suffered by the complainant. Thus, a part owner of three steam 1 Schunk vs. Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co., 147 U. S. 505; Smithers vs. Smith, 204 U. S. 642. boats and commander of one of them, engaged in the navigation of the Mississippi River between St. Louis and St. Paul, filed his bill of complaint alleging that navigation was much injured and delayed by a bridge of the defendant, which he said was a permanent nuisance. His bill prayed for no damages, but only for an abatement of the nuisance. Supreme Court said: The "The want of a sufficient amount of damage having been sustained to give the Federal Courts jurisdiction will not defeat the remedy, as the removal of the obstruction is the matter of controversy and the value of that object must govern. 168. Distinct Claims Against Different Parties Cannot Be United to Give Jurisdiction. Separate demands against different parties on distinct causes of action or on a single cause of action in which there are distinct liabilities, cannot be joined to give the Court jurisdiction. A Vermont agent for four different insurance companies, by a single policy, insured the property of the plaintiff for $12,000, each company severally assuming one-fourth of the obligation. Loss having occurred, the plaintiff brought a single suit against the four defendants and recovered a judgment for $3,000 and interest against each one of them. The defendants wanted to take the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, which then had jurisdiction to entertain appeals in such cases where the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000. It was held that the liability of each. defendant was distinct, and as it did not exceed $3,000, without interest, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction.1 169. Claims of Different Plaintiffs Against a Common Defendant Cannot Ordinarily Be United to Give Jurisdiction.-Several plaintiffs, each having claims less than the jurisdictional amount, cannot unite together in one joint suit so as to bring the amount in controversy up to the required sum. Two judgment creditors of the same defendant each had a 'Mississippi & Missouri R. R. Co. vs. Ward, 2 Black, 492. Ex parte Phoenix Insurance Co., 117 U. S. 369. claim less than the jurisdictional amount. The sum of the two exceeded that amount. They filed a bill in the United States Court to subject a particular fund, itself greater than the jurisdictional amount, to the liens of their respective judgments. It was held that the Court had no jurisdiction.1 170. When Plaintiffs Must Join, the Amount in Controversy is the Aggregate of Their Claims.-This whole subject was carefully considered by the Supreme Court in Gibson vs. Shufeldt.1 In another case it said: "The general principle * * * is, that if several persons be joined in a suit in equity or admiralty, and have a common and undivided interest, though separable as between themselves, the amount of their joint claim or liability will be the test of jurisdiction; but where their interests are distinct, and they are joined for the sake of convenience only, and because, they form a class of parties whose rights or liabilities arose out of the same transaction, or have relation to a common fund or mass of property sought to be administered, such distinct demands or liabilities cannot be aggregated together for the purpose of giving" *** "jurisdiction."2 One of the tests as to whether a creditor's claim is a distinct one, or whether all the creditors stand together, is whether the suit as brought by the creditor is a suit which he could bring for himself individually, or whether it is a suit which he can only bring for himself and all other creditors.3 On this principle, in a number of cases, jurisdiction has been sustained of a creditor's bill, filed by a number of creditors whose claims aggregate more than the jurisdictional amount, though none of them by itself equalled that sum. When jurisdiction has been taken of such bills, they have been filed on behalf of the complainants and of all other creditors who might come in and contribute to the expenses of the suit. The bills were such as could not have been filed by an individual creditor on his own behalf. 1 Seaver vs. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208. 1122 U. S. 28. Clay vs. Field, 138 U. S. 479. 'Hanley vs. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366. |