§ 17. Value of the matter in dispute when there are joint plaintiffs. Where a number of plaintiffs, claiming under the same title, and having a joint or a common and undivided interest in the relief sought, unite in a suit, the adverse party having no interest in the apportionment or distribution of the amount recovered among them; the value of their united interests is that of the matter in dispute; at least when they are all indispensable parties. It was so held, of a suit by several of the next of kin for an accounting by an administrator. Where life tenants and remaindermen join as plaintiffs in a bill seeking an injunction against threatened injury to the corpus of the estate; the amount of their joint interest is the test of jurisdiction.3 Where a number of shippers united in a suit to enjoin a railway company from enforcing a proposed schedule of charges for transportation, jurisdiction was maintained, although the interest of no single one of them was equal to the jurisdictional amount.* In proceedings for a mandamus to compel the collection of a single tax, levied for the joint benefit of all the relators, in which they had a common and undivided interest of different amounts; it was held, that the value of the matter in dispute, upon a writ of error, was measured by the whole amount of the tax, and not by the separate parts of the same which each of the. relators would receive after its collection.5 In a suit by the owners of separate lots, who derived title from a common grantor, to quiet their title as against a defendant who claimed to own. all the land; it was held, that the amount in controversy was the value of the whole tract of land owned by the complainants,

$ 17. 1 So held when the holders of several notes sued jointly to enforce a vendor's lien, in which they were all entitled to share. Troy Bank v. Whitehead & Co., 222 U. S. 39, 56 L. ed. 81. Where several of the next of kin sued to recover assets, converted by the husband of an administratrix; held, that their joint interest was the test of the jurisdiction. Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. 3, 15 L. ed. 93.

2 Prince v. Towns, 33 Fed. 161; Thornton v. Tison, 95 Ala. 589, 10 South, 639.

3 Herbert v. Rainey, 54 Fed. 248; aff'd, C. C. A., 55 Fed. 443.

4 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Pacific Coast Lumber Mfrs. Ass'n., C. C. A., 165 Fed. 1, 11. There the right of the railway company to maintain the schedule seems to have been the test. See, also, Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112, 118, 25 L. ed. 782.

5 Crawford v. Haller, 111 U. S. 796, 28 L. ed. 602; Davies v. Corbin, 112 U. S. 36, 28 L. ed. 627.

Where all

and not the value of the lots owned severally by each. the insurers of property damaged by fire, united in a submission to arbitration, and afterwards joined in a bill to set aside the award, it was held: the controversy was single, and the amount in controversy was the amount of the award." Where several creditors joined in a suit for the appointment of a receiver of the assets of a corporation; it was held, that there was jurisdiction, when their joint claims exceeded the jurisdictional sum, exclusive of interest and costs; although each of their individual claims was less. In a suit by the holders of bonds to enjoin strikers from interfering with the operation of their obligor because the acts threatened would decrease the value of their security; it was held that the amount in controversy was the value of the bonds held by all the plaintiffs. A finding that the plaintiffs below were bona fide holders of bonds and entitled to sue in the Circuit Court, was held to imply that they were joint owners and was sufficient to support the jurisdiction.10

Where two or more plaintiffs, having several interests, unite for the convenience of litigation in a single suit, it can only be sustained as to those whose claims exceed the jurisdictional amount.11 Thus several persons who have by similar frauds been induced to buy stock cannot give the court jurisdiction by adding the amounts which they separately claim when they unite in the same suit for a rescission of their purchases.12 Where a number of claimants to separate tracts of land under the same Act of Congress unite in a suit to establish their claims, the value of their lands cannot be added together for the purpose of estimating the value of the matter in dispute.18 A creditors' bill can

6 Lovett v. Prentice, 44 Fed. 459. 7 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bonner Mercantile Co., 56 Fed. 378, 5 C. C. A. 524; 15 U. S. App. 134; reversing s. c., 44 Fed. 151, 11 L. R. A. 623.

8 Jones v. Mutual Fidelity Co., 123 Fed. 506.

9 Carter v. Fortney, 170 Fed. 463. 10 Green County, Kentucky V. Thomas' Executor, 211 U. S. 598, 53 L. ed. 343; Troy Bank v. White

not be maintained by several complainants, holding independent demands against the debtor for less than the jurisdictional amount, although the aggregate of all the demands exceeds the same; when they do not sue on behalf of others, not parties.14 The same ruling was made when several purchasers of different parcels of the same tract of land sued to impress the land with. a lien for their payments on the purchase price and prayed for the appointment of a receiver and for the administration of the assets of the vendee which was a corporation.15 A similar ruling was made when two heirs, each claiming a separate undivided share of the estate of their father, sued to set aside his will for mistake and for a decree establishing their respective rights.16 In a suit by heirs for an accounting by the defendant of property of the intestate, which he had received, and for a distribution of the same, since any heir might have maintained the suit for his respective share without joining the others, it was held, that there was no jurisdiction, because the interest of none of the plaintiffs exceeded $2,000.17 It was similarly held, when determining the jurisdiction upon appeal in a suit by a legatee, to compel other legatees to pay over to the executor assets which they had received.18 A bill by several land owners to enjoin the collection or assessment of assessments or taxes against their respective property, cannot be maintained, except as to those whose tax or assessment would exceed the jurisdictional amount, although each relies upon the same ground of objection.19 The same ruling was made when several tax-payers joined in a suit to recover back taxes that they had paid.20 It was so held, also, as to the jurisdiction upon appeal.21

It was held that when several employees of a railroad company

ing decree, 96 Fed. 865; Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U. S. 621.

20 Risley v. City of Utica, 179 Fed. 875; King v. Wilson, Fed. Cas. No. 7,810 (1 Dill, 555); Schulenberg-Boeckeler Lumber Co. V. Town of Hayward, 20 Fed. 422.

21 Ogden City v. Armstrong, 168 U. S. 224, 42 L. ed. 444, 18 S. Ct. 98; affirming judgment 12 Utah, 476, 43 P. 119.

sued to enjoin a State officer from enforcing a statutory penalty against their employer, in case it failed to discharge all of the same claims to which the complainants belonged; that the value of their respective interests could not be aggregated when estimating the value of the matter in dispute.22 It has been said that a suit by several land owners, who are injured by a common nuisance, can only be maintained as to those who show that the injury, past and prospective, of each exceeds the jurisdictional amount.23 In a suit by several owners of water rights in a stream, joining as complainants for convenience only, to enjoin the obstruction or the diversion of water therefrom, by defendants, it was held, that the matter in dispute with each complainant must exceed the jurisdictional amount in order to give a Federal court jurisdiction.24 A suit under a Colorado statute, imposing a certain individual responsibility upon shareholders in banks, it was held, could not be maintained, except by those creditors whose individual claims exceeded the jurisdictional amount.25 The amounts of separate tontine life insurance policies cannot be added together in estimating the value of the matter in dispute in a suit where the holders unite, not suing on behalf of the rest of those interested in the fund, but praying for an accounting of the tontine fund and the appointment of a receiver.26 Where it appeared, from a bill brought by a number of insurance companies to set aside an award as to the amount of a loss, that the amount of insurance given by each of the plaintiffs exceeded the jurisdictional sum, and there was nothing to show that the loss was to be apportioned pro rata to the amount of each policy; it was held, that the court could not presume that such was the case and that there was jurisdiction, although the total insurance exceeded the loss fixed by the award; since the insured might select certain of the policies and sue upon them for their full value.27

22 Simpson v. Geary, C. C. A., 204 Fed. 507.

23 Hagge v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 104 Fed. 391, 393.

24 Eaton v. Hoge, C. C. A., 141 Fed. 64.

25 Auer v. Lombard, 72 Fed. 209, 19 C. C. A. 72, 33 U. S. App. 438.

26 Eberhard v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 241 Fed. 353.

27 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bonner Mercantile Co., 44 Fed. 151, 11 L.R.A. 623; Empire City Fire Ins. Co. v. American Cent. Ins. Co., C. C. A., 218 Fed. 214.

The consolidation after answer of two actions upon different contracts, brought by the same plaintiff against the same defendant, which aggregate more than the jurisdictional amount, but neither of which is teparately equal thereto; does not render the consolidated cause removable as a single action, although the defense to each is the same.28

§ 17a. The value of the matter in dispute in suits on behalf of a class. Where a suit is brought by one or more, for themselves, and all others of a class jointly interested, for the relief of the whole class; the aggregate interest of the whole class constitutes the matter in dispute.1 Where a bill by several taxpayers, in behalf of all, attacked the validity of certain county bonds issued to aid in constructing a railway, prayed an injunction restraining the sheriff from collecting a tax levied for the payment of interest, and the county judge from making any further levies, and also a decree that the bonds were invalid, and that all the holders be brought in by publication and perpetually enjoined from collecting principal or interest; it was held: that the main controversy was as to the validity of the bonds; and therefore was not separable, when determining the jurisdictional amount, into controversies affecting the amount due from the separate taxpayers.2

The bill or petition must show the pecuniary interest of the parties on whose behalf the suit is brought.3

Such a suit, where the class is similarly situated, but not jointly interested, can only be maintained by a plaintiff whose individual interest exceeds the jurisdictional amount. Thus it

28 E. A. Holmes & Co. v. U. S. Fire Ins. Co., 142 Fed. 863.

§ 17a. 1 Hill v. Glasgow R. Co., 41 Fed. 610; Towle v. Am. Bldg., L. & Inv. Soc., 60 Fed. 131; Putnam Timothy, D. G. & C. Co., 79 Fed. 454; Johnston v. Pittsburgh, 106 Fed. 753; Taylor v. Decatur, M. & L. Co., 112 Fed. 449; Ottumwa v. City Water Supply Co., C. C. A., 119 Fed. 315, 59 L.R.A. 604; Jones v. Mutual Fidelity Co., 123 Fed. 506; McKee v. Chautauqua Assembly, 124 Fed. 808. See taxpayers'

bills, $14, supra; creditors' bills, $15, supra; stockholders' bills, § 16, supra; and cases therein cited.

2 Brown v. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389, 11 Sup. Ct. 308, 34 L. ed. 987.

3 Adams V. Douglas County, Fed. Cas. No. 52; McCahon, 235, 1 Kans. 627; Sioux Falls Nat. Bank v. Swenson, 48 Fed. 621.

4 El Paso Water Co. v. El Paso, 152 U. S. 157, 159; Colvin v. Jacksonville, 158 U. S. 456, 460; Adams v. Douglas County, Fed. Cas. No. 52; McCahon, 235, 1 Kan, 627; Title