11

damages claimed for loss of business and employment, which, it was alleged that the plaintiff could have obtained if the contract had been performed, were too remote and must be excluded from consideration in the estimate of the jurisdictional amount.1 Upon a complaint alleging that plaintiff employed defendant to locate him on a half section of government land, which he entered under the homestead and timber acts, for which service he paid defendant $200, and seeking to recover damages for false and fraudulent representations as to the quantity and quality of timber on such land; it was held, that it did not state a cause of action for the recovery of damages, beyond the amount paid. defendant, if there could be any recovery, and that the action was not within the jurisdiction of a Federal court, although the damages were laid in a sum exceeding the jurisdictional amount.12 An action was brought by a city in a State court. to recover a tax of $2 for each of 509 telegraph poles maintained in the streets; but the declaration concluded: "And plaintiff claims $10,000." It was held, that the actual amount in dispute was but the amount of the tax, $1,018, and that the Federal Court could not take jurisdiction by removal.13 The law of Arkansas having limited plaintiff's recovery, in an action of unlawful detainer, to the rent due at the commencement of the suit and up to the time of rendering judgment, or the value of the occupation during the time of the unlawful detention of the premises, with damages for withholding the same; it was held, that a Federal court, in that State, did not have jurisdiction of such an action, when the complaint alleged that the amount due was the rent for nine months at $25 per month,14 although damages were also claimed in a sum exceeding the jurisdictional amount, without showing that plaintiff was entitled to anything but actual damages. 15 A cause is not removable, when the prayer for relief asks for "$3,000 and all other proper relief;" if, under the pleadings, no other relief can be granted.16

11 North American Transportation & Trading Co. v. Morrison, 178 U. S. 262, 44 L. ed. 1061.

12 Wines v. Cobb Real Estate Co., 128 Fed. 198.

13 Baltimore v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 62 Fed. 500.

14 Sand. & H. Digest, 670, § 3458. 15 Battle v. Atkinson, 115 Fed. 384; aff'd 191 U. S. 559, 48 L. ed. 302.

16 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Worman, 12 Ind. (App.), 494, 40 N. E. 751.

Where the State practice allows no greater damage than that prayed, the value of the matter in dispute will be considered to be no more than the amount stated in the plaintiff's prayer for relief, although the body of the complaint contains allegations showing greater damages.17 In a suit for the conversion of property, upon which plaintiff claimed liens, where the several liens were specifically set forth, and aggregated less than the jurisdictional amount; it was held: that a Circuit Court of the United States was without jurisdiction, although the damages claimed were the amount of a previous judgment establishing the liens against the original debtor for a sum, including interest and other expenses, exceeding such claims to which judgment the defendants, who had subsequently acquired the property, were not parties.18

In an action for the denial of the right to vote; 19 or for false imprisonment; 20 or for assault and battery; or in any other case in which exemplary damages may properly be awarded, the law prescribes no limitation to the amount that can be recovered, and the amount claimed by the plaintiff is the sole criterion to which resort can be had in settling the question of jurisdiction.21

In an action against attorneys for negligence in failing to defend an action; it was held that in the absence of allegations showing that a successful defense might have been interposed, the recovery could not be more than nominal and the jurisdictional amount was consequently not involved.22 In an action for damages because of the circulation of a mutilated map with plaintiff's name, where the complaint did not show special damage, it was held that no more than nominal damages could be recovered and that the jurisdictional amount was not involved.23 In an action for damages resulting from the death of plaintiff's

17 Simmons v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 114 Fed. 785; Swann V. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 116 Fed. 232; Barber v. Boston & M. R. Co., 145 Fed. 52. 18 Bergman v. Inman, Poulsen & Co., 91 Fed. 293.

19 Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58, 21 S. Ct. 17, 45 L. ed. 84.

20 Hynes v. Briggs, 41 Fed. 468.

21 Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dallas 401, 407, 1 L. ed. 655, 657; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550, 560, 29 L. ed. 729, 732.

22 Maryland Casualty Co. v. Price, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 397, affirming 224 Fed. 271.

23 Ohman v. City of New York, 168 Fed. 953.

66

husband and father, the sum named and prayed for was thousand dollars;" it was held, that it did not appear that the case involved the jurisdictional amount.24

Where the plaintiff brought his action in the Circuit Court of the United States claiming that it sounded in tort, in which cxemplary damages might be allowed and that consequently, the matter in dispute exceeded the jurisdictional amount, which otherwise would not have been the case; it was held, that he was estopped from contending, after the defendant's death, that it was not in tort, but in contract; and that, therefore, it might be revived.25

§ 8. Value of the matter in dispute in ejectment, and other suits to obtain the possession of land. It has been held: that, in ejectment, the value of the matter in dispute is that of the interest in the land, to recover which the suit is brought; although the defendant claims a less interest, or only an easement 2 in the same; together with any special damages that are alleged, and can be recovered in the suit. It has been held: that where a bill to recover an interest in lands alleged, "that complainants are informed and believe that the whole of said lands are worth $12,000, and the amount demanded by them herein is more than $2,000" was argumentative; since it left the court to make a calculation, and was insufficient to show the jurisdiction. Under the former statute where in an action involving the title to land, the plaintiff claimed the right thereto without making a payment of $2,200, demanded by one of the defendants, it was held, that the action was one involving more than $2,000 and was removable. Where no special acts of damage are pleaded, only nominal damages can be recovered; and the amount of damages alleged in general language cannot affect the value of the matter

24 Yarde v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 57 Fed. 913.

25 Iron Gate Bank v. Brady, 184 U. S. 665, 46 L. ed. 739.

§ 8. 1 Way v. Clay, 140 Fed. 352. See Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. Smith, 135 U. S. 195, 34 L. ed. 95; Dupree v. Leggette, 140 Fed. 776. Contra, Thompson V. Kendrick's Lessee, 6 Tenn. (5 Hayw.) 113. See Jones v. Rowley, 73 Fed. 286.

2 Greene v. Tacoma, 53 Fed. 562; Butters v. Carney, 127 Fed. 622. See Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. Smith, 135 U. S. 195, 34 L. ed. 95. 3 See Way v. Clay, 140 Fed, 352. 4 Dupree v. Leggette, 140 Fed. 776.

5 Withers v. Johns Hopkins Place Sav. Bank, 30 S. W. 766.

in dispute. Where the manner in which the land is used enhances its value to the defendant, that fact must be taken into consideration in the estimate.7 It has been held: that in an action of unlawful detainer in Arkansas, in the absence of an allegation of special damages, the value of the matter in dispute is no more than the amount of two years' rents, or the rental value for two years of the property in question, irrespective of its fee value.8

§ 9. Value of the matter in dispute in action to recover possession of personal property. In an action or proceeding to recover the possession of personal property, it seems, that the value of the property sought by the plaintiff, or by the claimant, is that of the matter in dispute. It is not enlarged by a claim of special damages for injury to plaintiff's business, when the State practice would not allow the recovery thereof.2 In replevin to collect rent by distress, the sum claimed as rent, if less than the value of the property replevied, but where replevin is brought as a means of trying the title to property, then the value of the whole; is the pecuniary test of jurisdiction. In a suit to compel the issue to complainant of a certificate for corporate stock, and the cancellation of a certificate previously issued to another, the par value of the stock was held to be the value of the matter in dispute. In a suit to compel inspectors to allow complainant an examination for a pilot's license, which they had refused to do, where the complaint alleged that the complainant was thereby deprived of a right given him by the laws of the United States, to his damage in "over one thousand dollars," and no objection was made in the court of first in

6 Way v. Clay, 140 Fed. 352; Elk Garden Co. v. T. W. Thayer Co., 179 Fed. 556, under Virginia Code 1904, §§ 2750, 2751.

7 Greene v. Tacoma, 53 Fed. 562; King v. Southern Ry. Co., 119 Fed. 1016.

8 Battle v. Atkinson, 115 Fed. 384; affirmed 191 U. S. 559, 48 L. ed. 302.

§ 9. 1 Peyton V. Robertson, 9 Wheaton, 527, 6 L. ed. 151; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, 29, 30 L.

ed. 1083, 1084; Hoover & Allen Co. v. Columbia Straw-Paper Co., 68 Fed. 945; Ryan v. Seaboard R. R. Co., 89 Fed. 397.

2 Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co., 170 U. S. 468, 42 L. ed. 1111, 18 S. Ct. 645; reversing 80 Fed. 786.

3 Peyton v. Robertson, 9 Wheaton, 527, 6 L. ed. 151; approved Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, 29, 30 L. ed. 1083, 1084.

4 Ryan v. Seaboard & R. R. Co. 89 Fed. 397.

stance because of the inadequacy of the matter in dispute; it was held upon appeal that it might be inferred that the damages would exceed the jurisdictional amount. In an action to recover a claim of less than $2,000, begun by an attachment of property worth more, claimed by a receiver who removed the cause, it was held, that the value of the whole property was that of the matter in dispute.

§ 10. Value of the matter in dispute in suits of foreclosure. In a suit to foreclose a mortgage or other lien, the amount in dispute, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction, is the sum sought to be recovered through the lien; 1 together with any damages, not covered by the lien, for which judgment is prayed.2 But it was held: that a suit by the vendor upon a contract to pay for land in installments, where the complaint prayed the court to ascertain the amount due and to become due and to fix a time for its payment, in default of which defendant "be foreclosed of all right or title to interest in or lien upon said land;" was brought, not for foreclosure, but to determine the rights of the parties in the land, and that the value of the real estate not the amount due, was the matter in dispute. Where a default in payment of interest makes the principal due, the sum of both is the jurisdictional amount.*

In a suit to foreclose a mortgage securing the sum of $2,000, the bill alleged that plaintiff advanced an additional $2.25 to pay the fee for recording the mortgage, "for which defendant is liable to him." It was held: that the averment of liability was a mere conclusion of law; and that the bill, therefore, failed to show that more than $2,000 was involved. The value of the matter in dispute is not limited by the value of the property subject to the lien or mortgage.

5 Williams v. Molther, C. C. A., 198 Fed. 460.

6 Hoover & Allen Co. v. Columbia Straw-Paper Co., 68 Fed. 945.

§ 10. 1 Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, 30, 30 L. ed. 1083, 1084; Stillwell, B. & S. V. Co. v. Williamston, O. & F. Co., 80 Fed. 68; Wakeman V. Throckmorton, 124 Fed. 1010.

2 Lilienthal V. McCormick, 117 Fed. 89, 54 C. C. A. 475.

3 Squire v. Robertson, 191 Fed. 733.

4 Lowenthal v. Georgia Coast & P. R. Co., 233 Fed. 1010.

5 Less v. English, 85 Fed. 471, 29 C. C. A. 275.

6 Stillwell-Bierce & Smith-Vaile Co. v. Williamston Oil & Fertilizer