§ 11. Value of the matter in dispute in suits to redeem. In a suit to redeem land, the value of the equity of redemption is the value of the matter in dispute.1 Where the bill prayed, that a trust deed purporting to be security for a loan and a subsequent deed executed upon a foreclosure thereof be set aside, or in the alternative, that complainants be permitted to redeem on payment of the mortgage debt, interest and costs; it was held, that the value of the matter in dispute was that of the land, not the amount required to redeem.2

§ 12. Value of the matter in dispute in suits to quiet title. In a suit to quiet title or to remove a cloud therefrom the value of the matter in controversy is ordinarily that of so much of plaintiff's property as is affected by the adverse claim.1 Where the complainant sued to recover possession of a part of a tract of land and to quiet his title to the whole, it was held that the value of the whole was the criterion.2 Where the land was part of a railroad's right of way, one hundred feet distant from its tracks, which had never been used in the operation of the railroad; it was held that the value of that part of the land, not the value of the company's right to operate the railroad, was that of the matter in dispute. In a suit to cancel a paper purporting to be a marriage contract, which, if valid, gave the alleged wife an interest in the property of the plaintiff, it was held, that the amount of the provision, which the woman would be entitled to receive were the contract held binding, was the value of the matter in dispute. Where plaintiff sued to quiet title and to set aside a

Co., 80 Fed. 68; Bucyrus Co. v. Me-
Arthur, 219 Fed. 266.

§ 11. 1 Carne v. Russ, 152 U. S. 250, 38 L. ed. 428.

2 Greenfield v. U. S. Mtg. Co., 133 Fed. 784.

$12. 1 Parker v. Morrill, 106 U. S. 1, 27 L. ed. 72; Lehigh, Z. & I. Co. v. N. J. Z. & I. Co., 43 Fed. 545; Simon v. House, 46 Fed. 317; Riggs v. Clark, 71 Fed. 560, 18 C. C. A. 242, 37 U. S. App. 626; Felch v. Travis, 92 Fed. 210; Woodside v. Ciceroni, 93 Fed. 1, 35 C. C. A. 177; Cowell v. City Water-Supply Co., 96 Fed. 769; Cowell v. City WaFed. Prac. Vol. I-4

ter-Supply Co., 121 Fed. 53, 57 C. C. A. 393; Hyde v. Victoria Land Co., 125 Fed. 970; Building & Loan Ass'n of Dakota V. Cunninham (Texas, 1898), 47 S. W. 714; Sloane v. Kramer Bros. & Co., 230 Fed. 727, 730, quoting with approval the former text.

2 Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Weldon, C. C. A., 246 Fed. 265.

3 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Cunningham, 173 Fed. 90.

4 Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. 337. See Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Moshier, 151 Fed. 806.

deed of trust on certain land, and also to vacate a deed executed to the purchaser under foreclosure of such deed of trust, but asked in the alternative that, if the deeds be not set aside, she be permitted to redeem on payment of the mortgage debt, interest and costs; it was held, that the amount involved was the value of the land, and not the amount required to redeem.5 Allegations in a complaint for the cancellation of a lease, and to enjoin the lessees from using the premises: that the value of the leased premises was $10,000; and that the rental value of the property was $2,400 a year; it was held: were sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Federal court. It was held: that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of a suit to correct an ambiguity in the deed of a railroad right of way, and to restrain the removal of gates at a crossing in the enclosure thereof, where the value of the realty and the damage accruing to adjacent property from the road's construction were not shown to exceed the jurisdictional amount; and the fact that animals might stray on the track through the threatened openings in the enclosure, and cause wrecks occasioning great damage, did not help the case; since, when jurisdiction depends on a particular sum, suits where the right involved cannot be calculated in money are not within it. In suits to set aside, as clouds upon the title to lands: a tax: 8 sessment for a street improvement; 9 and to cancel certain street improvement certificates; 10 it was held, that the amount of the tax, assessment and certificates, respectively, was the value of the matter in dispute; not the value of the lands affected.11

an as

§ 13. Value of the matter in dispute in suits for injunctions. In a suit for an injunction, the value of the matter in dispute is that of the object of the bill, namely, the value, to the plaintiff, of the right for which he prays protection; 2 or the value, to the

5 Greenfield v. U. S. Mtg. Co., 133 Fed. 784.

6 Reese v. Zimm, 103 Fed. 97. 7 Oregon R. & Nav. Co. v. Shell, 125 Fed. 979.

8 Douglas Company v. Stone, 191 U. S. 557; s. c., 110 Fed. 812; Purnell v. Page, 128 Fed. 496; Turner v. Jackson Lumber Co., C. C. A., 159 Fed. 923.

9 Eachus v. Hartwell, 112 Fed. 564.

10 Shewalter V. Lexington, 143 Fed. 161.

11 See infra, §§ 13-16.

$ 13. 1 Western Union Tel. Co. v. City Council, 56 Fed. 419, 420; citing with approval Foster's Fed. Pr., (2nd ed.) § 16.

2 Bitterman

V. Louisville & N.

defendant, of the acts of which the plaintiff prays prevention; 3 together with the amount of the damages which the plaintiff claims that he has already sustained and prays to have awarded to him. It is not limited by the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff to have already accrued. It has been held that the amount of such damages cannot be considered nor added to the value of the right sought to be protected. When the value of the right sought to be protected is uncertain, the averment in the bill upon that subject will usually govern,7 provided it can

be reasonably inferred to have some pecuniary value; but where a right, such as that to inspect the books or records of a corporation, is ordinarily not one of pecuniary value, the rule is otherwise. In a bill by the owner, to enjoin a trespass, which it was alleged would entirely destroy the use of certain land; it was held, that the value of the land was the test.9 Where a mortgagor sued to enjoin the sale of land under a mortgage, which it was claimed was void; it was held: that the value of the matter in dispute was that of the mortgage, although the suit also prayed judgment against the defendant for money usuriously charged and received by it, which was less than the jurisdictional amount.10 In a suit by a mortgagee, to enjoin an act which he claimed would impair the value of his security, it was held: that the amount of the damage, which would result from the threatened act, was the test.11 In a suit to enjoin the illegal seizure of imported liquors; the value to the plaintiff of the right to make such importations, and of the articles, which he intended to import and which defendants threatened to seize.12 When a railroad company sued to enjoin the collection of penalties of $500 each by a commission and a shipper, alleging that the penalties, for which it would be sued in the future, would exceed the jurisdictional amount; and that the right sought to be protected was more than that amount; it was held, that the jurisdiction sufficiently appeared, although the dispute arose concerning demurrage to the amount of $146.13 It was so held of a similar suit against a commissioner alone.14 In a suit by a railroad company, to enjoin a shipper from a multiplicity of suits to recover overcharges; it was held, that the value of the matter in dispute was the value to the plaintiff of the right to maintain its schedule rates.15 In a suit by the receiver of a water company to restrain

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

9 Smith v. Bivens, 56 Fed. 352; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Cunningham, 103 Fed. 708; Sheriff v. Turner, 119 Fed. 231. But see Hagge v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 104 Fed. 391.

10 Dickinson v. Union Mtg. & Tr. Co., 64 Fed. 895.

11 Clapp v. Spokane, 53 Fed. 515.

12 Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107, 115, 41 L. ed. 648, 654.

13 McNeill v. Southern Ry. Co., 202 U. S. 543, 548, 50 L. ed. 1142, 1145.

14 Railroad Commission v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 144 Fed. 68.

15 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. KuteC. C. A., 54 Fed. 547.

man,

a multiplicity of suits by customers to compel him to reduce the water rates; it was held, that the value of the right to maintain his schedule rates was the test of jurisdiction.16 In suits by a railway company, to enjoin the scalping or resale of non-transferrable tickets; the value of the business sought to be protected was held to be the test.17

In a suit to restrain the infringement of a trademark, and to compel an account of the profits; the value of the matter in dispute is the value of the trademark, not the amount of the profits which the defendant has derived from its use.18 In a suit to enjoin the unlawful use of a trade name; the damages already incurred, plus those which the bill alleged would be suffered in the future, unless the relief prayed was granted.19 But in a suit to enjoin an unlawful use of complainant's trade name, where it was not alleged that the acts complained of would destroy the value of the name; the value thereof was held not to be that of the matter in dispute.20

In a suit to enjoin the unlawful use of market quotations posted in the plaintiff's exchange; the value of the exclusive right to the same is the test.21 In a suit to enjoin the cancellation of a contract, it was held, that the matter in dispute was the right to maintain the contract; which was to be measured by the profits, not by the gross receipts, from the defendant thereunder, nor by the cost to the plaintiff of preparation to perform its part of the same.22 But in another case, it was held that the value of the matter in dispute was the

:

16 Lanning v. Osborne, 79 Fed. 657.

17 Bitterman v, Louisville & N. R. Co., 207 U. S. 205, 52 L. ed. 171; affirming Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bitterman, C. C. A., 144 Fed. 34; Del., L. & W. R. Co. v. Frank, 110 Fed. 689. In a suit for specific performance of a contract to carry the complainants free during their lives, the value of the right to the same was held to be that of the matter in dispute. Mottley v. Lonisville & N. R. Co., 150 Fed. 406.

18 Symonds v. Greene, 28 Fed.

834; Hennessy v. Herrmann, 89 Fed. 669; Draper v. Skerrett, 116 Fed. 206.

19 Draper v. Skerrett, 116 Fed. 206.

20 Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. Butler, 128 Fed. 976.

21 Board of Trade v. Cella Commission Co., C. C. A., 145 Fed. 28, where an allegation that complainant realizes $30,000 a year from the right it sued to protect was held to be sufficient.

22 Riverside & A. Ry. Co. v. Riv erside, 118 Fed. 736, 737, 738, 743.