페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

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

R. Co., 207 U. S. 205, 52 L. ed. 171; Oleson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 44 Fed. 1; Herbert v. Rainey, 54 Fed. 248; Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. McConnell, 82 Fed. 65; Von Schroeder v. Brittan, 93 Fed. 9; Humes v. City of Fort Smith, Ark., 93 Fed. 857; Maffet v. Quine, 95 Fed. 109; rehearing denied, 93 Fed. 347; State of Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 96 Fed. 353; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Frank, 110 Fed. 689; Riverside & A. Ry. Co. v. City of Riverside, 118 Fed. 736; American Fisheries Co. v. Lennen, 118 Fed. 869; Cowell v. City Water-Supply Co., 121 Fed. 53, 57 C. C. A. 393; reversing decree 96 Fed. 769; McKee v. Chautauqua Assembly, 124 Fed. 808; State v. Frost, 89 N. W. 915, 113 Wis. 623; Morris v. Bean, 146 Fed. 423; Spaulding v. Evenson, 149 Fed. 913; Rocky Mountain Bell Tel. Co. v. Montana Federation of Labor, 156 Fed. 809; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Pacific Coast Lumber Mfrs. Ass'n., C. C. A., 165 Fed. 1, 11, the right to maintain a schedule of charges for transportation.

3 Cowell v. City Water-Supply Co., C. C. A., 121 Fad. 53, 57 C. C. A. 393; reversing decree 96 Fed. 769; Am. Smelting & Refining Co. v. Godfrey, C. C. A., 158 Fed. 225, 14 Ann. Cas. 8; Mississippi & Mo.

R. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485, 17 L. ed. 811; Whitman v. Hubbell, 30 Fed. 81; Oleson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 44 Fed. 1; Rainey v. Herbert, C. C. A., 55 Fed. 443; American Fisheries Co. v. Lennen, 118 Fed. 869; Amelia Milling Co. v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co., 123 Fed. 811; Memphis v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., C. C. A., 145 Fed. 602.

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

5 Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107, 115, 41 L. ed. 648, 654; Whitman v. Hubbell, 30 Fed. 81; Rainey v. Herbert, 55 Fed. 443; Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. McConnell, 82 Fed. 65; American Fisheries Co. v. Lennen, 118 Fed. 869; Rocky Mountain Bell Tel. Co. v. Montana Federation of Labor, 156 Fed. 809.

6 Sloane v. Kramer Bros. & Co., 230 Fed. 727; Bureau of National Literature v. Sells, 211 Fed. 379. But see Draper v. Skerrett, 116 Fed. 206.

7 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Kuteman, 54 Fed. 547; Studebaker v. Salina Waterworks Co., 195 Fed. 164; Martin v. City Water Co., 197 Fed. 462; both of which involved the right to measure its charges by meters; Enders v. Supreme Lodge Knights and Ladies of Honor, 176 Fed. 832, the right of an insurance association to levy an assessment.

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. Kuteman, C. C. A., 54 Fed. 547.

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. Riverside, 118 Fed. 736, 737, 738, 743.

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

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

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, exceeded 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;

« 이전계속 »