Page images
PDF
EPUB

that they might properly join as plaintiffs, one or more of such persons may sue on behalf of the whole number. Where a plaintiff brings a suit for himself, and on behalf of all others who may join with him in the suit, and no one else joins, the amount in dispute is determined in the same manner as if plaintiff did not offer to represent others who have not seen fit to accept the invitation.2 When a suit is brought by one plaintiff on behalf of many persons, it is often difficult to determine whether the amount in dispute is the sum alone of the plaintiff's interest in the controversy, or the total value of the right in dispute between the defendant and the whole number of persons in whose behalf the plaintiff sues.3 As a general rule, if the interests of the parties are several, so that the interest of each plaintiff must exceed $2,000, to warrant his joinder as such, the interest in the recovery sought held by the plaintiff of record is the sum in dispute ; *

the State court on the ground that p
no separate claim was large enough
to authorize that Court to take
jurisdiction.
$ 94.

1 Brown v. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389, 11 Sup. Ct. 308, 34 L. 987;

Pillsbury-Washburn Flour Mills Co. v. Eagle, 58 U. S. App. 490, 30 C. C. A. 386, 86 Fed. 608, 41 L. R. A. 162;

Cutting v. Gilbert, 6 Fed. Cas. 1079, 5 Blatchf. 259, 2 Int. Rev. Rec. 94;

Cutting v. Gilbert, 6 Fed. Cas. 1079, 5 Blatchf. 259, 2 Int. Rev. Rec. 94.

2 Chatfield v. Boyle, 105 U. S. 231, 26 L. 944;

Bruce v. Manchester & Keene Railroad, 117 U. S. 514, 6 Sup. Ct. 849, 29 L. 990;

Massa v. Cutting, 30 Fed. 1, 24 Blatchf. 239;

Smithson v. Hubbell, 81 Fed. 593,

594.

3 The same difficulty arises when all the parties in interest are joined

Knopf v. First Nat. Bank, 173 as plaintiffs. Ill. 331, 50 N. E. 660.

A common interest of many persons merely in the questions of law involved in a suit will not authorize one or more to sue on behalf of all. Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107, 17 Sup. Ct. 262, 41 L. 648;

Baker v. Portland, 2 Fed. Cas. 472, 5 Sawy. 566, 20 Alb. Law J. 206, 8 Reporter 392, 4 Cin. Law Bul. 620, 11 Chi. Leg. News 375, 25 Int. Rev. Rec. 321, 3 Pac. Coast Law J. 469;

Ante § 93, note 1.
4 In

Smithson v. Hubbell, 81 Fed. 593, the Court (Hanford, Judge) said, p. 594:

"I am constrained, however, by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States to hold that the amount of indebtedness to the complainant, which is less than $2,000, must be taken as the amount involved, for the purpose of determining the question of

but where the interests of the several parties on whose behalf plaintiff sues, are joint, or so nearly joint that their interests would be aggregated to make the sum or value in dispute if they all should become plaintiffs, the total sum or value of their interests is the matter in dispute.5

In a suit to abate a nuisance, the amount in controversy is the same whether the suit be brought by one person in behalf of all or by a hundred persons affected thereby. In a suit by a property owner or owners of a county to cancel county bonds, it can not affect the amount in dispute,-the sum of the bonds sought to be canceled,-whether every property owner in the county joins in the suit or one single owner as plaintiff brings the suit on behalf of all. Where a suit is brought by a stockholder of a corporation to restrain the waste of corporate assets, the plaintiff acts on behalf of all the stockholders, as would the corporation if it were plaintiff, and the value in dispute is held to be the sum of the assets about to be wasted, and not the plaintiff's pro

jurisdiction. In suing as a repre- | ralty, and have a common and unsentative of a class of persons sim- divided interest, though separable ilarly situated, and having similar as between themselves, the amount rights, the complainant brings into of their joint claim or liability will the case only the questions to be be the test of jurisdiction; but determined; and he is not to be where their interests are distinct, considered as bringing into the and they are joined for the sake of case the separate claims and de- convenience only, and because they mands of other creditors. The form a class of parties whose rights law does not confer upon him the or liabilities arose out of the same authority of an agent of other cred- transaction, or have relation to a itors for that purpose, nor author-common fund or mass of property ize him to augment his own distinct claim for the purpose of making a claim within the jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Court."

The Court said in Smithson v. Hubbell, supra, that the case was governed by the principles stated in Clay v. Field, 138 U. S. 464, 11 Sup. Ct. 419, 34 L. 1044, as follows:

"The general principle observed in all is that if several persons be joined in a suit in equity or admi

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." Consult, also, ante § 93.

5 Cases cited in succeeding notes to this section.

Auth. cited ante § 93, note 8. 7 Brown v. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389, 11 Sup. Ct. 308, 34 L. 987, quoted post § 96, note 2.

portion thereof. It has been held-but another case on better reason holds the contrary-that in a suit by a stockholder to have a receiver appointed to wind up the affairs of an insolvent corporation, not the value of the plaintiff's stock, but the value of the entire corporate assets is the value in dispute. Where a suit in equity is brought by one creditor or more, on behalf of all, against an insolvent corporation and its stockholders to collect and administer a trust fund for the payment of the debts of the corporation, the question whether the amount of the fund to be administered determines the jurisdiction, or the amount of the debt or debts to the plaintiff or plaintiffs of record, seems to be uncertain; perhaps the latter is the true criterion.10 If the petitioner

This rule has been applied in a suit by a stockholder of a corporation on its behalf, to annul, on the ground of fraud, a foreclosure proceeding by which all its corporate property was lost, and to recover the property.

8 Hill v. Glasgow R. Co., 41 Fed., interpretation opens a wide door to 610. abuse. It is a matter of no difficulty to place stock in the hands of a citizen of some State other than that of the corporation, and thus create the element of diverse citizenship. Under this arrangement, every controversy in which a stockholder has a right to complain of the conduct of the corporation could be brought within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts." Towle v. American Bldg., Loan & Inv. Co., 60 Fed. 131, 134.

The Court said:

"It sufficiently appears from averments in the bill that the subject-matter of the suit, viz., the entire property of the New York & Northern, exceeds in value the jurisdictional sum of $2,000." Neufville v. New York & N. R. Co., 51 U. S. App. 374, 26 C. C. A. 306, 81 Fed. 10.

Compare

De

Jurisdiction of a similar case was held to be very doubtful in

Colston v. Southern H. B. & L. Ass'n, 99 Fed. 305.

Jurisdiction was denied, where plaintiff's stock was not in excess

Harvey v. Raleigh & G. R. Co., of $2,000, in 89 Fed. 115;

Robinson v. West Virginia Loan

Cowell v. City Water-Supply Co., Co., 90 Fed. 770. 96 Fed. 769.

9"In this case the entire assets of the society are brought into Court for administration, and are, therefore, the matters in dispute or controversy." Towle v. American Bldg., Loan & Inv. Soc., 60 Fed. 131, 134.

"It is apparent, however, that this

10 There are expressions in different parts of the opinion in

Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366, 11 Sup. Ct. 117, 34 L. 706, which may be construed to favor both theories.

The more positive statement seems to favor the latter theory:

"The sums alleged to be due

merely seeks to recover his individual interest in a fund, the amount of such interest determines the question of jurisdiction.11

§ 95. When two or more defendants are sued by the same plaintiff in one suit, the test of jurisdiction is the joint or several character of the liability to the plaintiff."—Many of the rules stated in the preceding sections 2 apply, with very slight modification, in determining the question of jurisdiction where there are two or more defendants in a suit. If defendants are jointly liable for the purpose of original jurisdiction, and they are beaten and appeal, they will be considered as jointly liable for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction; if the liability of the defendants is several, such liability will be so treated both in the trial Court and

from the corporation to the original plaintiffs amounting to more than $2,000, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the case, and authority to administer and distribute the amounts due from the individual defendants to the corporation for unpaid subscriptions to stock, as a trust fund for the benefit of all the creditors of the corporation, and for that purpose to permit creditors, who had not originally joined in the bill, to come in and prove their claims before a master."

The Court, in a petition by a few creditors of a corporation to enforce the execution of an assignment made by it for the benefit of all its creditors,—

Putnam v. Timothy Dry-Goods & Carpet Co., 79 Fed. 454,took a contrary view; but as there was one plaintiff in that case whose claim alone exceeded $2,000, the Court did not express a very positive opinion upon the question. Jurisdiction existed under either view of the law. Compare

Auer v. Lombard, 33 U. S. App. 438, 19 C. C. A. 72, 72 Fed. 209, cited ante § 93, note 10.

11 Terry v. Hatch, 93 U. S. 44, 23 L. 796;

Miller v. Clark, 138 U. S. 223, 11 Sup. Ct. 300, 34 L. 966. § 95.

1 Walter v. Northeastern R. Co., 147 U. S. 370, 13 Sup. Ct. 348, 37 L. 206.

This is well illustrated by the decisions in

Tupper v. Wise, 110 U. S. 398, 4 Sup. Ct. 26, 28 L. 189;

Lynch . Bailey, 110 U. S. 400 note, 4 Sup. Ct. 27, 28 L. 190; Friend v. Wise, 111 U. S. 797, 4 Sup. Ct. 695, 28 L. 602; Pacific Live-Stock Co. v. Hanley, 98 Fed. 327.

2 Ante §§ 93, 94.

3" The rule applicable to several plaintiffs having separate claims, that each must represent an amount sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction, is equally applicable to several liabilities of different defendants to the same plaintiff." Walter v. Northeastern R. Co., 147

upon appeal. Where defendants are jointly liable to suit, the liability of all the defendants together is the jurisdictional sum.5 Where the liability or interest of defendants in the subject of litigation is not strictly joint, but they all claim under a common title or right adverse to plaintiff, the total sum or value in dispute between the plaintiff and all the defendants is the criterion of jurisdiction. To illustrate: If a plaintiff should bring a suit, to recover a town lot, against three persons, one of whom claims the fee, another a life estate, and the other an estate as mortgagee, all through a common source of title, the value of the lot, and not the separate value of the different interests of the defendants therein, should determine the jurisdiction. But if a suit is brought against several defendants to quiet title to land, where each defendant claims U. S. 370, 13 Sup. Ct. 348, 37 L. 206, | the adverse party having no interquoted in Stemmler v. McNeill, 102 est in its apportionment or distriFed. 660. bution among them, or claim it under separate and distinct rights, each of which is contested by the adverse party; that when two persons are sued, or two parcels of

4 Chamberlin v. Browning, 177 U. S. 605, 20 Sup. Ct. 820, 44 L. 906; Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 15 Sup. Ct. 237, 39 L. 289;

Clay v. Field, 138 U. S. 464, 11 property are sought to be recovered Sup. Ct. 419, 34 L. 1044;

or charged, by one person in one

fendants' alleged liability to the

Wheeler v. Cloyd, 134 U. S. 537, suit, the test is whether the de10 Sup. Ct. 601, 33 L. 1008; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, plaintiff, or claim to the property 7 Sup. Ct. 1066, 30 L. 1083;

is joint or several; and that, so far Ex parte Phoenix Ins. Co., 117 as affected by any such joinder, U. S. 367, 6 Sup. Ct. 772, 29 L. 923; the right of appeal is mutual, beBallard Paving Co. v. Mulford, cause the matter in dispute between 100 U. S. 147, 25 L. 591; the parties is that which is asserted Spear v. Place, 11 How. 522, 13 on the one side and denied on the L. 796.

In Gibson v. Shufeldt, supra, the Supreme Court said:

other."

5 Pacific Live-Stock Co. v. Hanley, 98 Fed. 327.

This is impliedly decided in all the cases cited in these notes upon the subject of the several liability of defendants.

"Generally speaking, however, it may be said that the joinder in one suit of several plaintiffs or defendants, who might have sued or been sued in separate actions, does 6 The text is supported in prinnot enlarge the appellate jurisdic- ciple by the cases cited ante § 93, tion; that when property or money notes 3, 4 which apply this rule to is claimed by several persons suing plaintiffs claiming under a common together, the test is whether they title, and by the auth. cited in succlaim it under one common right, | ceeding notes to this section.

« PreviousContinue »