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

14 Putney v. Whitmire, 66 Fed. 385. See Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, 30 L. ed. 1083.

15 Howard v. Linnhaven Orchard Co., 288 Fed. 523.

16 Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U. S. 594. 17 Rich v. Bray, 37 Fed. 273, 2 L.R.A. 225.

18 Miller v. Clark, 138 U. S. 223, 225, 34 L. ed. 966.

19 Wheless v. City of St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379, 45 L. ed. 583; affirm

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 plaintiff's 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 separately 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

has been held that a landowner cannot sue on behalf of himself and all others similarly interested to enjoin a street railway company from crossing certain streets, where it is not shown that the injury to his property, if the injunction is not granted, would exceed $3,000,5 Upon a bill by a bank, on behalf of itself and its stockholders, to enjoin taxes assessed against the bank and them, which did not aver that the plaintiff had in his hands, or under its control, any dividends belonging to the stockholders that could be applied to pay the taxes; it was held, that the claim was in separate and distinct rights, and that the jurisdictional amount must be determined by the amount of the tax against the complainant.

§ 18. Value of the matter in dispute when there are joint defendants. Where two or more defendants are joined by the same plaintiff in one suit, the pecuniary test of jurisdiction is ordinarily the joint or several character of their liability. If their liability is joint, the value of the matters in controversy between the plaintiff and them all is that of the matter in dispute.1 Where a number of claims are so tied together, by combination or conspiracy, as to make the relief single in regard to the same, the aggregate amount thereof is the pecuniary test of jurisdiction. When several actions at law pending in a State court between the same parties, each for less than the jurisdictional amount but aggregating in excess thereof, all depend upon the same state of facts, and by stipulation judgment is entered in all in accordance with the result of the trial of one; a single suit in equity may be maintained to restrain the enforcement of all the judgments, on the ground of fraud in obtaining them, and such a suit may be removed.3 Where separate actions at law by insured against insurers on policies, to which the same defense was interposed, and under which the liability, if any, was proportional, were removed to the Federal court, with the excepLive-Stock Co. v. Hanley, 98 Fed.

Guaranty Co. v. Allen, 240 U. S. 136; Nolen v. Reichman, 225 Fed. 812.

5 Orleans-Kenner Electric Ry. Co. v. Dunbar, C. C. A., 218 Fed. 344. 6 Sioux Falls Nat. Bank v. Swenson, 48 Fed. 621.

$ 18. 1 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Norman, 77 Fed. 13; Pacific

327.

2 McDaniel v. Traylor, 212 U. S. 428, 53 L. ed. 584.

3 Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U. S. 589, 12 Sup. Ct. 62, 35 L. ed. 870; reversing Calhoun v. McKnight, 39 La. Ann. 325, 1 South. 612.

tion of one in which the amount involved was insufficient; it was held, that prosecution of this action, as well as of the others, might be enjoined by a bill in equity in the Federal court to have the liabilities of insurers there determined and adjusted. A suit by heirs, to set aside judgments, none of which exceeded $2,000, rendered by a probate court against their ancestor's estate, through a fraudulent combination, was held to be within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States when the real estate, upon which the judgments were liens, exceeded in value the jurisdictional amount.5

If the liability is several, ordinarily, the suit can only be sustained as against those whose respective controversies with the plaintiff involve matters exceeding, as regards each, the jurisdictional amount.6 Upon a creditors' bill, to enjoin the enforcement of several attachments against the debtor's property; it was held, that there was no jurisdiction, when the amount of none of the attachments exceeded the jurisdictional amount.7 Jurisdiction. cannot be conferred on a court, to enjoin the collection of taxes assessed in several parishes by joining in one bill against the different collectors the whole amount of such taxes; the separate assessments not being sufficient to give jurisdiction.

In

a suit by a railroad company against officers of several counties, 4 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., v. Home Ins. Co., C. C. A., 113 Fed.

1.

5 McDaniel v. Traylor, 196 U. S. 415, 49 L. ed. 533, reversing 123 Fed. 338.

6 Where Rev. St. Wis. 1898, S. 2609a, authorized the joinder of several causes of action against several insurance companies liable for a single loss under several policies; held, that since, notwithstanding such joinder, the liability of each was separate, and not joint, the Federal court had no jurisdiction of such an action where the alleged liability of each insurance company did not exceed the jurisdictional amount. Wisconsin Cent. Ry. Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 123 Fed. 989. Where Rev. St. Ind. 1881, Fed. Prac. Vol. I-5

§ 2442 (Rev. St. 1894, § 2597), provided that the heirs, devisees and distributees of a decedent shall be liable, to the extent of the property received by them from such decedent's estate, to any creditor whose claim remains unpaid;" held, that the liability of two or more heirs, devisees, or distributees of a decedent is several, and not joint, and, though another statute provides that they may be jointly sued, the Federal court has no jurisdiction of a suit against them unless the liability of each exceeds such amount. Busey v. Smith, 67 Fed. 13.

7 Chamberlain v. Browning, 177 U. S. 605 (appellate jurisdiction). 8 Citizens' Bank of Louisiana v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319, 41 L. ed. 451.