jurisdiction. But, it has been held: that, where an injunction is sought against the collection of an annual tax or license fee, imposed upon a franchise or upon the right to exercise a certain occupation, resistance to the payment of which would result in the destruction of the plaintiff's business; the value of the right to exemption, including the threatened damage to this business, not the amount of the tax or license fee which has accrued, is to be considered.3 Upon a bill to enjoin an income tax upon a salary annexed to an office, claimed to be exempt; the specific tax sought to be enforced, not the right to exemption, was held to be the test. It has been held, upon a bill to enjoin the collection of a land tax, filed by a corporation claiming an exemption; that the amount of the tax claimed to be already due was the sole test, since it could not be assumed that the assessment for subsequent years would be for a like amount. The cases conflict as to whether, in a suit to enjoin a municipality from issuing bond. or otherwise incurring indebtedness, the pecuniary test of 1 jurisdiction is the amount of the tax, to which the complainant would be thereby subjected, or the whole debt, the creation of which complainant seeks to prevent. In a suit to enjoin a municipality from issuing bonds, to an amount charged to be in

Field v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 117 Fed. 925; Turner v. Jackson Lumber Co., C. C. A., 159 Fed. 926; Risley v. City of Utica, 168 Fed. 737; Everglades D. League v. Napoleon B. Broward D. Dist., 253 Fed. 246.

2 Douglas Company v. Stone, 191 U. S. 557, 24 S. Ct. 843, 48 L. ed. 801; s. c., affirming 110 Fed. 812; Eachus v. Hartwell, 112 Fed. 564; Purnell v. Page, 128 Fed. 496; Tur ner v. Jackson Lumber Co., C. C. A. 159 Fed. 923.

3 American Fertilizing Co. V. Board of Agriculture, 43 Fed. 609, 11 L.R.A. 179; Western Union Tel. Co. v. City Council, 56 Fed. 419; Humes y. City of Fort Smith, Ark., 93 Fed. 857; Southern Exp. Co. v. City of Ensley, 116 Fed 756; Hutchinson v. Beckham, 118 Fed.

399, 55 C. C. A. 333; Berryman v. Board of Trustees of Whitman College, 222 U. S. 334; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. City of Mobile, 179 Fed. 955; Jewel Tea Co. v. Lee's Summit, Mo., 198 Fed. 532.

4 Purnell v. Page, 128 Fed. 496. 5 Citizens' Bank of Louisiana v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319, 41 L. ed. 451. Contra, Board of Trustees of Whitman College v. Berryman, 156 Fed. 112.

excess of the constitutional limit of its indebtedness; the value of the power of the city to issue such bonds, not the tax to which the complainant would be thereby subject, was held to be the value of the matter in dispute. It has been held: that upon a taxpayer's bill, to enjoin the execution of a contract for a public work; the value of the contract, and not the amount of the tax complainant might be required to pay in consequence, was the amount in dispute.8

§ 15. Value of the matter in dispute upon creditors' bills. It has been held: that, upon a creditor's bill, the value of the complainant's claim, not the value of the property sought to be reached,1 nor the value of the claim, payment of which he seeks to enjoin, is that of the matter in dispute, when the creditor sues in his own right alone; but that when the creditor sues on behalf of himself and the other creditors, for the administration of a trust fund, or to collect money or other property applicable to the payment of its debts, the amount of such fund or property determines the question of jurisdiction. In one case the value of immature claims was added to that of those already matured, when determining the jurisdictional amount.5

§ 16. Value of the matter in dispute upon stockholders' bills. It has been held: that upon stockholders' bills, to enforce causes

7 Ottuma v. City Water Supply Co., C. C. A., 59 L.R.A. 604, 119 Fed. 315; City of Helena v. Helena Waterworks Co., C. C. A., 173 Fed. 18; Larabee v. Dolley, 175 Fed. 365.

See Brown v. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389, 11 Sup. Ct. 308, 34 L. ed. 987. But see Risley v. City of Utica, 168 Fed. 737.

8 Johnston v. City of Pittsburgh, 106 Fed. 753.

$.15. 1 Werner v. Murphy, 60 Fed. 769; Alkire Gr. Co. v. Richesin, 91 Fed. 79; Cowell v. City Water Supply Co., 121 Fed. 53; reversing s. c., 96 Fed. 769; Casey v. Baker, 212 Fed. 247. See Bruce v. Manchester & K. R. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514, 29 L. ed. 990; Estes v. Gunter, 121 U. S. 183, 30 L. ed. 884;

3 Putnam v. Timothy, D. G. & C. Co., 79 Fed. 454; Jones v. Mutual Fidelity Co., 123 Fed. 506. See Alsop v. Conway, C. C. A., 188 Fed. 568. But see Bruce v. Manchester & K. R. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514, 29 L. ed. 990.

4 Conway v. Owensboro Sav. Bank & Tr. Co., 165 Fed. 822, to enforce the liability of stockholders.

5 Johnston v. Straus, 26 Fed. 57.

of action belonging to corporations; or to enjoin actions, which are ultra vires; 2 or to protect the assets of the company from waste, or for the appointment of a receiver of the corporate assets, or for the distribution of the same,5 the value of the matter in dispute is that of the corporate right sought to be enforced, or of the amount of loss which the corporation would suffer from the threatened unlawful action, or the value of the assets of the corporation, as the case may be; not the value of the plaintiff's stock. In a suit to compel the issue to complainant of a certificate of corporate stock, and the cancellation of one issued to another; it was held, that the value of the matter in dispute was at least the par value of the stock, where there were circumstances tending to show that the defendants had valued it at a higher sum.6 But in a suit to compel a transfer of stock and payment of the depreciation in its market value on the day of the demand for transfer and the highest market value between such day and judgment, it appearing that the reason for the refusal was to protect the corporation from liability for an inheritance tax; it was held that the amount of such tax was the pecuniary test of the jurisdiction. There can be no pecuniary valuation of the matter in dispute in a suit by a stockholder to compel the corporation to allow him to inspect its books and records.8

$ 16. 1 Hill v. Glasgow R. Co., 41 Fed. 610. See § 145, infra. Contra, Massa v. Cutting, 30 Fed. 1; Harvey v. Raleigh & G. R. Co., 89 Fed. 115.

2 McKee v. Chautauqua Assembly, 124 Fed. 808; Larabee v. Dolley, 175 Fed. 365; Howard v. Nat. Telephone Co., 182 Fed. 215, where a preferred stockholder sued to compel the rescission of a transfer of a majority of the common stock, alleging that his stock was of the par value of $3,100 and that this and the other preferred stock was threatened with destruction in value by the illegal control of the assets obtained by the transferee of the common stock.

3 Carpenter v. Knollwood Cemetery, 198 Fed. 297.

4 Towle v. Am. Bldg., L. & Inv. Soc., 60 Fed. 131; Robinson v. W. Va. Loan Co., 90 Fed. 770; Taylor v. Decatur M. & L. Co., 112 Fed. 449; Jacobs v. Mexican Sugar Co., 130 Fed. 589; Re Cleland, 218 U. S. 120, 54 L. ed. 962.

5 Kent v. Honsinger, 167 Fed. 619. 6 Ryan v. Seaboard & R. R. Co., 89 Fed. 397, 404.

7 Jessup v. Chicago, & N. W. Ry. Co., 188 Fed. 931.

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

§ 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.2 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.4 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. 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.13 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

head & Co., 222 U. S. 39, 56 L. ed. 81.

11 Separate claims, by different persons, for work, labor and services, cannot be joined, in order, by their aggregate amount, to confer jurisdiction, though a joinder be authorized by State statute. Holt v. Bergevin, 60 Fed. 1.

12 Robinson v. Wenmer, 253 Fed. 790.

13 Bateman V. Southern Oregon Co., C. C. A., 217 Fed. 933.