28

interest subsequently accrued, or right claimed at the outset of the suit but abandoned before the judgment was entered, can be taken into consideration.29 Where a defendant's counter-claim has been dismissed and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, the amount of the counter-claim added to the amount of the plaintiff's recovery is the value of the matter in dispute," unless the bill of exceptions shows that on the trial the defendant abandoned all or a part of his counter-claim." Where the matter set up in a cross-bill is directly responsive to the averments in the original bill, and is directly connected with the transactions therein set forth as the gravamen of the plaintiff's case, the amount claimed in the cross-bill may be considered in determining the jurisdiction on appeal from a decree upon both bills. The probative force of the judgment, and its effect as an estoppel in a subsequent suit between the same parties to

32

ell, 140 U. S. 247. As to the plaint-
iff's right to reduce the judgment by
filing a remittitur of part of the ver-
dict, and thus prevent an appeal, see
supra, § 378.
Where part of the
judgment had been paid it was held
that the balance, not the original
amount, was the matter in dispute.
Thorp v. Bonnifield, 177 U. S. 15.
So where part of the amount of the
judgment was not disputed below.
Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Knox,
110 U. S. 304; Cox v. Western L. & C.
Co., 123 U. S. 375. It has been held
that the plaintiff cannot, by except-
ing to the allowance of part of the
damages awarded to him and to the
refusal by the trial court to permit a
remittitur, when he brings a writ of
error to correct this alleged error,
obtain a dismissal of defendant's
writ of error upon the ground that
the actual value of the matter in dis-
pute is less than the jurisdictional
amount. Balt. & O. R. Co. v. Griffith,
159 U. S. 603. Upon appeal from a
decree or writ of error to the judg
ment of an appellate court affirming
the decree or judgment of a court
below it, where such judgment or
decree of affirmance expressly in-

cludes interest from a time antecedent to its entry and the interest is part of the claim litigated, the interest is included in the computation of the value of the matter in dispute. Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S. 617; The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451; The Rio Grande, 19 Wall. 178. See Keller v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610, 617; Woodward v. Jewell, 140 U. S. 247, 248. If the judgment of affirmance is silent as to interest, interest is not included in the computation. Railroad Co. v. Trook, 100 U. S. 112; District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 327.

28 Walker v. U. S., 4 Wall. 163; Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Rogers, 93 U. S. 565; Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694.

29 Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 6.

30 Dushane v. Benedict, 120 U. S. 630; Block v. Darling, 140 U. S. 234; Buckstaff v. Russell, 151 U. S. 626; Clark v. Sibway, 142 U. S. 682; Sire v. Ellithrope A. B. Co., 137 U. S. 579. 31 Bradstreet Co. v. Higgins, 112 U. S. 227.

32 Lovell v. Cragin, 136 U. S. 130, 141.

34

recover a larger amount, as in the case of a judgment in a suit to collect a coupon, cannot be considered as adding to the value of the matter in dispute.33 As a general rule, where judgment is for the defendant, the amount of the plaintiff's claims is the value of the matter in dispute; but this rule is subject to the qualification that the demand shall clearly appear to have been made in good faith for such amount. Where the object of a suit is to apply property worth more, to the payment of a debt worth less, than the jurisdictional amount, the amount of the debt, not the value of the property, is the test of jurisdiction. In a suit to establish the right to an office, the aggregate amount of the salary for the unexpired term claimed by the plaintiff in error is the value of the matter in dispute. In a suit to remove a trustee, the value of the matter in dispute is the value of the trust estate, not the value of the trustee's commissions or other compensation.37 In a suit to recover land the value of the interest in the same claimed by the plaintiff is that of the matter in dispute.

33 Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578, 580; Bruce v. Manchester & K. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514; Clay Center v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 145 U. S. 224. Cf. Richardson v. Green, 130 U. S. 104.

34 If, for instance, a greater amount than $5,000 was claimed in the ad damnum clause of the declaration, and the bill of particulars showed the actual claim to be less, the latter would be the value of the matter in dispute. Gorman v. Havird, 141 U. S. 206, 207, per Brown, J. So in an action for trespass on land worth $1,800, by the levy upon the same of an execution for less than $30, when there was no allegation of special damage, and it appeared that the plaintiff had released the levy by paying the amount of the execution, although spite was alleged, and the damages laid at $6,000, the court held that the matter in dispute was less than $5,000. Magruder v. Armes, 180 U. S. 496. See Bradstreet Co. v. Higgins, 112 U. S. 227; and supra, $ 16.

36

In a suit for an injunction,

35 Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, 29, per Gray, J.; Peyton v. Robertson, 9 Wheat. 527; Farmers' Bank of Alexandria v. Hooff, 7 Pet. 168; Ross v. Prentiss, 3 How. 771.

36 U. S. v. Addison, 22 How. 174; Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167; Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366. See N. E. Mtge. Security Co. v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123; U. S. v. Wanamaker, 147 U. S. 149. A sum claimed for disbursements not alleged to have been made by the plaintiff is not included. Gorman v. Havird, 141 U. S. 206. 37 Kenaday v. Edwards, 134 U. S. 117. But see Caffrey v. Territory of Oklahoma, 177 U. S. 346.

38 Green v. Fisk, 154 U. S. 668; Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. Smith, 135 U. S. 195; Black v. Jackson, 177 U. S. 349; Cameron v. U. S., 146 U. S. 533. In a suit to recover the possession of leasehold premises, the amount expended by the lessee in the improvement of the premises may be considered in estimating the value of the matter in dispute. Harris v. Barber,

the value of the object sought to be gained by the bill, not the amount of the plaintiff's damages, is ordinarily the value of the matter in dispute.39

In a suit to compel an executor to account for certain assets, the value of plaintiff's interest in such assets, not the value of the assets, is that of the matter in dispute.40 Where a number of plaintiffs claiming under the same title and having a common 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, their united interests constitute the matter in dispute." Where a suit is brought by

one for himself and all others jointly interested, the aggregate interest of those who join with him, not that of the whole class, constitutes the disputed matter.42 Where several persons join in one suit to assert separate and distinct interests, and these interests alone are in dispute, their interests upon appeal are considered separately, and the amount of the interest of each is the limit of the appellate jurisdiction, even when they sue in behalf of themselves and all others similarly interested.43 Where different claimants obtain a decree in their favor for sums to be paid separately to each of them, the largest amount thus decreed is the value of the matter in dispute." Where one person obtained a decree for the payment of two sums of money to him by the same persons, one to be retained by him for his own benefit, the other to be held by him as trustee for others, the aggregate of the two sums was held to be the value of the matter in dispute.45 When there is an appeal of which the court has jurisdiction and which opens the whole case, a cross-appeal which involves less than the jurisdictional amount

parcels of land. Friend v. Wise, 111 U. S. 797. But see Chamberlain v. Browning, 177 U. S. 605.

42 Bruce v. Manchester & K. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514, 516; Handley v. Stutz, 138 U. S. 366. But see Union Bank of Chicago v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U. S. 223.

43 Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, 34, per Gray, J.; Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208; Russell v. Stansell, 105 U. S. 303; Chatfield v. Boyle, 105 U. S. 231; Adams v. Crittenden, 106 U. S. 576; Schwed v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188; F. L. & Tr. Co. v. Waterman, 106 U. S. 265; Hassall v. Wilcox, 115 U. S. 598; Fourth Nat. Bank v. Stout, 113 U. S. 684; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61; Paving Co. v. Mulford, 100 U. S. 147; Ex parte Phoenix Ins. Co., 117 U. S. 367; Wheeler v. Cloyd, 134 U. S. 537; Union Bank of Chicago v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U. S. 223; Smith M. P. Co. v. McGroarty, 136 U. S. 237; Clay v. Field, 138 U. S. 464, 479, 480, per Mr. Justice Brad

ley: "The general principle observed in all cases is that if several persons be joined in a suit in equity or admiralty, and have a common and undivided interest, though separable as between themselves, the amount of their joint claim or liability will be the test of jurisdiction; but where their interests are distinct, and they are joined for the sake of convenience only, and because they form a class of parties whose rights or liabilities arose out of the same transaction, or have relation to a common fund or mass of property sought to be administered, such distinct demands or liabilities cannot be aggregated together for the purpose of giving this court jurisdiction by appeal, but each must stand or fall by itself alone."

44 Ex parte Baltimore & O. R. Co., 106 U. S. 5; The Nevada, 106 U. S. 154.

45 The Propeller Burlington, 137 U. S. 386, 390. See Hawley v. U. S., 108 U. S. 543.

may also be taken and decided. Where the value of the matter in dispute does not appear upon the record, affidavits upon this point may be filed either in the inferior court or in the supreme appellate court.47 When filed in the inferior court they must be sent with the record. The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff in error or appellant." A finding or a statement upon the subject in an order of the court below is given great weight,50 but is not conclusive.

§ 505. Parties to writs of error and appeals. All parties on the record who are injuriously affected by a final judgment or decree may appeal or sue out a writ of error. An intervenor has the right of appeal from a final decree, judgment, or order by which he is injuriously affected. A purchaser at a foreclosure sale has a right to appeal from an order by which he is injuriously affected. The cases in which a receiver can

46 Walsh v. Meyer, 111 U. S. 31; fused to intervene in, or to become a U. S. v. Mosby, 133 U. S. 273.