ville (1894) 153 U. S. 289, 14 Sup. Ct. 829, the decision in Robbins v. Taxing Dist. was followed. Asher's Case was strictly one of a drummer soliciting orders on behalf of manufacturers residing in another state, and was decided upon the ground that the circumstances in that case and in Robbins' Case were substantially the same. 128 U. S. 131, 9 Sup. Ct. 1. In* Brennan's Case it was expressly agreed by the parties that the goods offered by him for sale in Pennsylvania were afterwards sent by their owner in the other state directly to the purchasers. 153 U. S. 290, 14 Sup. Ct. 829. The case of Stoutenburgh v. Hennick (1889) 129 U. S. 141, 9 Sup. Ct. 256, in which an act of the legislature of the District of Columbia taxing commercial agents "offering for sale goods, wares or merchandise, by sample, catalogue or otherwise," was held to be unconstitutional, as applied to a commercial agent offering for sale goods of a Maryland house, did not substantially differ in principle or in circumstances.

In Leloup v. Port of Mobile (1888) 127 U. S. 640, 8 Sup. Ct. 1380, in which a general license tax imposed by a statute of Alabaina on a telegraph company, affecting its entire business, interstate as well as domestic or internal, without discrimination, was held unconstitutional, Mr. Justice Bradley, in delivering judgment, took occasion to observe that "there are sufficient modes in which the internal business, if not already taxed in some other way, may be subjected to taxation, without the imposition of a tax which covers the entire operations of the company"; and to repeat that "this exemption of interstate and foreign commerce from state regulation does not prevent the state from taxing the property of those engaged in such commerce located within the state as the property of other citizens is taxed, nor from regulating matters of local concern, which may incidentally affect commerce." 127 U. S. 647, 649, 8 Sup. Ct. 1380. See, also, Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Pennsylvania (1891) 141 U. S. 18, 11 Sup. Ct. 876; Ficklen v. Taxing Dist. (1892) 145 U. S. 1, 12 Sup. Ct. 810; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. City Council of Charleston (1894) 153 U. S. 692, 14 Sup. Ct. 1094; Cable Co. v. Adams (1895) 155 U. S. 658, 15 Sup. Ct. 268.

In Dent v. West Virginia (1889) 129 U. S. 114, 9 Sup. Ct. 231, this court upheld the validity of a statute of West Virginia requiring every person practicing medicine in the state to obtain a certificate from the state board of health, and, speaking by Mr. Justice Field, said: "The power of the state to provide for the general welfare of its people authorizes it to prescribe all such regulations as, in its judgment, will secure, or tend to secure, them against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity, as well as of deception and fraud." 129 U. S. 122, 9 Sup. Ct. 231.

In Leisy v. Hardin (1890) 135 U. S. 100, 10 Sup. Ct. 681, a statute of a state, prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors without a li

cense, was, as applied to a sale of liquors in the original packages, and by the person who had brought them into the state from another state, held to be inconsistent with the power of congress to regulate commerce among the several states; and that conclusion was reached by applying to the case the rule laid down by Chief Justice Marshall in Brown v. Maryland, above cited, and stated by the present chief justice in these words: "That the point of time when the prohibition ceases, and the power of the state to tax commences, is not the instant when the article enters the country, but when the importer has so acted upon it that it has become incorporated and mixed up with the mass of property in the country, which happens when the original package is no longer such in his hands; that the distinction is obvious between a tax which intercepts the import as an import on its way to become incorporated with the general mass of property, and a tax which finds the article already incorporated with that mass by the act of the importer." 135 U. S. 110, 10 Sup. Ct. 6S1. The decision made at the same time in Lyng v. Michigan was to the same effect. 135 U. S. 161, 10 Sup. Ct. 725. Presently after those decisions, congress, by the act of August 8, 1890 (chapter 728), enacted that all intoxicating liquors or liquids brought into or remaining in a state should, upon their arrival therein, be subject, like domestic liquors, to the operation of laws enacted by the state in the exercise of its police powers. 26 Stat. 313. After congress had thus, as said by the chief justice, "declared that imported liquors or liquids shall, upon arrival in a state, fall within the category of domestic articles of a similar nature," this court unanimously held that intoxicating liquors brought into a state before this act of congress, were subject to the operation of the earlier statutes of the state remaining unrepealed. In re Rahrer (1891) 140 U. S. 545, 560, 564, 11 Sup. Ct. 865.

In Plumley v. Massachusetts (decided at the present term) the question, as stated by the court, was, "Does the freedom of commerce among the states demand a recognition of the right to practice a deception upon the public in the sale of any articles, even those that may have become the subject of trade in different parts of the country?" After reviewing many of the cases, citing the passages above quoted from the opinions in Walling v. Michigan and in Dent v. West Virginia, and distinguishing Leisy v. Hardin, the court answered the question in the negative, and therefore held that the statute of Massachusetts prohibiting the sale of oleomargarine colored to imitate butter was constitutional and valid, as applied to a sale by an agent within the state of articles manufactured in another state by citizens thereof. 155 U. S. 461, 468, 471-474, 15 Sup. Ct. 154.

The necessary conclusion, upon authority as well as upon principle, is that the statute of Missouri now in question is nowise repug

nant to the power of congress to regulate commerce among the several states, but is a valid exercise of the power of the state over persons and business within its borders. Judgment affirmed.

(156 U. S. 322)

In re LEHIGH MIN. & MANUF'G CO.

(March 4, 1895.)

SUPREME COURT-APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURTCERTIFICATE OF QUESTION OF TRIAL COURT'S JURISDICTION-SUFFICIENCY.

Where, in an action in the circuit court in which the only question involved is one of jurisdiction, the judgment not only recites that, for reasons filed as part of the order, the court considers it has no jurisdiction, and dismisses it for want of jurisdiction, but the judge certifies, in the bill of exceptions, that it was "held that the court did not have jurisdiction of the suit, and ordered the same to be dismissed," and, in the order allowing a writ of error, certifies that it is allowed on "the question of jurisdiction," there is a sufficient compliance with Judiciary Act March 3, 1891, § 5, which provides that in any case in which the jurisdiction of the circuit court is in issue the question of jurisdiction alone shall be certified to the supreme court from the court below for decision. • The Lehigh Mining & Manufacturing Company, alleging itself to be "a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, and a citizen and resident of the said state of Pennsylvania," brought its action of ejectment in the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Virginia against J. J. Kelly, Jr., and others, tenants and lessees of Kelly, to recover the land described in the declaration. The defense pleaded not guilty, and also filed two pleas to the jurisdiction of the court. These pleas averred that, for 10 years prior to the commencement of the action in ejectment, the Virginia Coal & Iron Company, a corporation existing under the laws of Virginia and a citizen of Virginia, had been claiming title to the lands of the defendant Kelly described in the declaration; that, immediately preceding the commencement of the action, the Virginia Coal & Iron Company, its stockholders, officers, and members, organized, under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, the Lehigh Mining & Manufacturing Company, to which the Virginia Company conveyed said land, in order to enable the Lehigh Company to institute suit in the c.rcuit court, said Lehigh Company being simply another name for the Virginia Company, being composed of the same parLes, and organized alone for the purpose of taking a conveyance of the land from the Virginia Company, and the Virginia Company making the conveyance, fraudulently and collusively, for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the circuit court. Issue was joined upon the pleas, and on the 30th day of May, 1894, was tried by the court, Hon. John Paul, district judge, holding the circuit court, presiding, upon an agreed state

ment of facts, which recited, among other things, that the Lehigh Company in the month of February, 1893, was organized under the laws of Pennsylvania by the individual stockholders and officers of the Virginia Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Virginia and a *citizen of that state, and that the land in controversy was conveyed by the Virginia Company to the Lehigh Company; "that the purpose of organizing said Lehigh Mining & Manufacturing Company, and in making to it said conveyance, was to give to this court jurisdiction in this case; but that said conveyance passed to said Lehigh Mining & Manufacturing Company all of the right, title, and interest of said Virginia Coal & Iron Company in and to said land; and that, since said conveyance, said Virginia Coal & Iron Company has had no interest in said land, and has not and never has had any interest in this suit; and that it owns none of the stock of the Lehigh Mining & Manufacturing Company, and has no interest therein whatever." The court, being of opinion that "the organization by the individual stockholders and officers of a corporation existing under the laws of one state of a corporation under the laws of another state, for the express purpose of bringing a suit in the federal court to try the title to a tract of land claimed by the Iormer corporation, and conveyed to the latter after its organization, and before suit brought, will not enable the grantee to maintain a suit in ejectment in such court'; that the suit did not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of the court; and that the plaintiff had been collusively made a party to it, for the purpose of making a case cognizable in the federal court,-sustained the pleas and dismissed the action. 64 Fed. 401.

The judgment of the court was as follows: "This day came again the parties by their attorneys, and on motion of the defendants to dismiss this suit, because instituted and prosecuted in fraud of the jurisdiction of the court, by consent of the parties the cause came on to be heard upon the two pleas in writing to the jurisdiction heretofore filed in the case, at the proper time, and general replication thereto, and the agreed statement of facts, signed by the attorneys and filed therein, the exceptions indorsed thereon; and the court having fully considered the said two pleas, the agreed statement of facts aforesaid, and the exception to a certain paragraph in the said agreed statement of facts, and argument of counsel, doth consider that the said exceptions are not well taken, and overrule the same. And the court further considers that the said pleas be, and they are hereby, sustained. And for reasons in writing filed herewith, as part of this order, the court doth further consider that it has no jurisdiction of this case, and that the said action of ejectment be, and the same

on the ground of want of jurisdiction, for in them that would be the sole question, and the certificate, though requisite to our jurisdiction under the statute, would not be in itself essential, however valuable in the interest of brevity of record. But in such other cases the requirement that the question of jurisdiction alone should be certified for decision was intended to operate as a limitation upon the jurisdiction of this court of the entire case, and of all questions involved in it,-a jurisdiction which can be exercised in any other class of cases taken directly to this court, under section 5." If in this case the jurisdiction had been sustained, and the defendants had preserved the question by certificate in the form of a bill of exceptions, and the cause had subsequently proceeded to a final decree against them, it would seem that they could have brought the case, at the proper time, on the question of jurisdiction solely, directly to this court, although not compelled to do so.

At all events, where the question is certified as it was here, we think the requisition of the statute sufficiently complied with. Leave denied.

(156 U. S. 328)

BROWN v. WEBSTER.

(March 4, 1895.)
No. 160.

FEDERAL COURTS-JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.

Where an evicted grantee sues the grantor in Nebraska for $6,000 damages, the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $2,000, though the price paid by plaintiff for the land was only $1,200; and the law of such state, in case of eviction, imposes a responsibility only for the return of the price, with interest thereon.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska.

The plaintiff below (defendant in error) bought in 1881, from the defendant below, with full warranty, a tract of land, the purchase price of which was $1,200. In 1886, one Thomas Hugh sued to recover the land in question, averring that he had a superior title to that which had been purchased and conveyed as above stated. This action culminated in a final judgment, ousting the defendant therein from the property. The plaintiff here, who was defendant in the suit in ejectment, then brought this suit in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska, to recover the sum of $6.342.40 and costs. The alleged cause of action was the sale, the warranty, and the eviction, and the sum above mentioned was laid as the amount of damages claimed. The defendant demurred, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action. "for that it appears on the face of said amended petition that the amount in controversy herein between the plaintiff and defendant, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed the sum and value of $2,000." A

plea was subsequently filed, but, by order of the court, was striken from the record. The demurrer was overruled. After answer filed, the case was submitted to the court, without the intervention of a jury. Judgment was thereupon rendered for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,030, and the defendant brought the case here by error.

J. H. Blair, for plaintiff in error. Frank W. Hackett, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice WHITE, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The only error complained of here is the absolute want of jurisdiction in the court below, which it is asserted is apparent on the face of the record. The argument is that the matter in dispute did not exceed $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and hence the alleged want of jurisdiction. The demand of the plaintiff was for damages in the sum of $6,000. This was the principal controversy. It is insisted, however, that as, under the law of Nebraska, damages in case of eviction involved responsibility only for the return of the price, with interest thereon, and the price here was only $1,200, the sum in controversy could not exceed $2,000, exclusive of interest; that is to say, as the measure of the damage was price and interest, the price being below $2,000, the jurisdictional amount could not be arrived at by adding the interest to the price. Is contention overlooks the elementary distinction between interest as such and the use of an interest calculation as an instrumentality in arriving at the amount of damages to be awarded on the principal demand. As we have said, the recovery sought was not the price and interest thereon, but the sum of the damage resulting from eviction. All such damage was therefore the principal demand in controversy, although interest and price and other things may have constituted some of the elements entering into the legal unit, the damage which the party was entitled to recover. Whether, therefore, the court below considered the interest as an instrument or means for ascertaining the amount of the principal demand, is wholly immaterial, provided the principal demand as made and ascertained was witin the jurisdiction of the court. Indeed, the confusion of thought which the assertion of want of jurisdiction involves is a failure to distinguish between a principal and an accessory demand. The sum of the principal demand determines the question of jurisdiction. The accessory or the interest demand cannot be computed for jurisdictional purposes. Here the entire damage claimed was the principal demand, without reference to the constituent elements entering therein. This demand was predicated on a distinct cause of action,-eviction from the property bought. Thus considered, the attack on the jurisdiction is manifestly unsound, since its premise is that a sum, which was an essential

*330

ingredient in the one principal claim, should be segregated therefrom, and be considered as a mere accessory thereto. Judgment affirmed.

(156 U. S. 353)

UNITED STATES ex rel. SIEGEL v. THO-
MAN, Comptroller of City of New Orleans.
(March 4, 1895.)
No. 125.

CITIES-INDebtedness—APPLICATION OF SURPLUS
REVENUE-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Extra Sess. Acts La. 1877, p. 47, providing that all the revenues of a city of each year "shall" be devoted to) the expenditures of that year, provided that any surplus of said revenues "may" be applied to the payment of indebtedness of former years, is merely permissive as to the surplus, and does not contractually dedicate the surplus of any year to payment of claims of years prior to that year, but subsequent to 1877, so that Act 1882, No. 20, §§ 65, 66, and Act 1886, No. 109, authorizing the surplus of any year to be applied to works of public improvement impair the obligation of no contract right under the act of 1877 in favor of the holders of such claims. 44 Fed. 590, affirmed.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The legislature of the state of Louisiana in 1877 passed an act which may be epitomized as follows: That no police jury of any parish or municipal corporation in the state should make appropriations or expenditures of money in any year which should, separately or together with any appropriations or expenditures of the same year, be in actual excess of the actual revenue of the parish or municipality for that year; and that all the revenues of the parishes and municipalities of each year should be devoted to the expenditures of that year, provided "that any surplus of said revenues may be applied*to the payment of the indebtedness of former years." Extra Sess. Acts 1877, p. 47.

In 1879 (Act No. 38 of that year) it was provided that it should be the duty of the board of administrators of the common council of the city of New Orleans, in December of each year, to propose a detailed statement exhibiting the amount of revenues for the ensuing year expected to be derived by the city from taxes and licenses, and that, along with this estimate of receipts, it should be likewise the duty of the city to prepare a detailed statement of the estimated expenditures, exhibiting the items of liability and expenses for the year, including the requisite amount for contingent expenses during that time. The act provided that the estimate of liabilities and expenses should not exceed four-fifths of the estimated amount of revenue. It made it the duty of the city to adopt a budget of revenues and liabilities, and to levy the taxes and collect the licenses provided in the estimate, in order to pay the same.

It directed that the detailed estimate of receipts and expenses should be considered as an appropriation of the amounts

therein stated to the purposes therein set forth, and forbade the diversion of any of the receipts from the particular purposes to which they were then appropriated.

In 1882, in an act reincorporating the city of New Orleans, the foregoing provision as to the annual estimate and budget was practically re-enacted, with the direction that the budget be published in the official journal. This law, in addition, provided as follows:

"The council in fixing the budget of revenue and expenses as herein provided shall not consider and adopt as a revenue miscellaneous or contingent resources and affix thereto either an arbitrary or nominal value or amount; but whenever such resources are considered and adopted they shall be estimated on a real and substantial basis, giving the source whence to be derived, the specific sum to be received from each item thereof, and no more. The council is hereby prohibited from estimating for expenditures to be derived from any uncertain or indefinite source, cause or circumstance; but the council shall, by the proper ordinances provide for the receipt and disbursement of any sums of money, interest, rights or credits that may accrue to the corporation by bequest, grant or any cause whatever, and all such sums, rights, interests or credits so received shall be, and are hereby, appropriated for the purposes of public works and improvements, the manner and details of such appropriations to be ordered by the council.

"The council shall not under any pretext whatever appropriate any funds for the government of the corporation to the full extent of the estimated revenues, but shall reserve 25 per cent. of said estimated revenues, which reserve and all sums, rights, interests and credits received from miscellaneous or contingent sources shall be appropriated by the council for the purposes of public improvements as herein provided for." Acts 1882, p. 35, No. 20, §§ 64-66.

In 1886 the act just quoted was amended by providing that the council "shall not under any pretext whatever appropriate any funds for the government of the corporation to the full extent of the revenues, but shall reserve 20 per cent. of said revenues; which reserve and all sums, rights, interests and credits received from miscellaneous or contingent sources shall be appropriated by the council for the purposes of permanent public improvements, as herein provided for."

In March, 1883, the city of New Orleans sanctioned the issue of transferable certificates of ownership for unpaid appropriations, which certificates entitled the creditor to receive a cash warrant for the claim in the order of the promulgation of the ordinance by which the claim was authorized. The ordinance provided that the certificates thus issued should bear no interest.

Prior to May 21, 1890, the relator herein brought three suits against the city of New Orleans in the circuit court of the United