No presumption of a contrary intention can be made. Whatever may have been the causes of delay, it must be presumed that the delay was consistent with the true policy of the Government," pp. 193, 194. And see Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176, and opinion of Mr. Justice Gray in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 345.

The authority of a military government during the period between the cession and the action of Congress, like the authority of the same government before the cession, is of large, though it may not be of unlimited, extent. In fact, certain limits, not material here, were put upon it in Dooley v. United States, 182 U. S. 222, and Lincoln v. United States, 197 U. S. 419, though it was said in the Dooley case, p. 234: "We have no doubt, however, that, from the necessities of the case, the right to administer the government of Porto Rico continued in the military commander after the ratification of the treaty, and until further action by Congress," citing Cross v. Harrison, supra.

But whatever may be the limits of the military power, it certainly must include the authority to establish courts of justice, which are so essential a part of any government. So, it seems to have been thought in Leitensdorfer v. Webb, supra. With this thought in mind, the military power not only established this particular court in Porto Rico, but as well a system of courts, which took the place of the courts under Spanish sovereignty, and were continued by the organic act. The same course was pursued in the Philippine Islands.

By § 34 of the organic act (31 Stat. 77), a District Court of the United States for Porto Rico was created, and it was provided that the same "shall be the successor to the United States provisional court established by General Orders-numbered Eighty-eight, promulgated by Brigadier General Davis,. United States Volunteers, and shall take possession of all records of that Court, and take jurisdiction of all cases and proceedings pending therein, and said United States provisional court is hereby discontinued."

The record shows that in conformity with this provision the newly-created District Court of the United States for Porto Rico issued an execution upon this judgment of the United States Provisional Court, and the property was sold upon that execution.

A further contention of the plaintiffs is, that the United States Provisional Court was without jurisdiction, because the diversity of citizenship made requisite by the order did not exist. Assuming, without deciding, that this question is open at this time, we are of the opinion that the citizenship of the parties to the action in the United States Provisional Court was such as to give that court jurisdiction. The plaintiff there was a Spanish subject and the defendant a citizen and a resident of Porto Rico. Taking the second and the tenth paragraphs into consideration and the classes of persons enumerated in paragraph 8, which included "foreigners," there can be no doubt that the case was within the jurisdiction which the order sought to confer. In view of the whole order, we think that a controversy between a Porto Rican and a Spaniard furnished the diversity of citizenship which the order made jurisdictional. Undoubtedly, one of the main purposes of the establishment of this court was to afford a court where Spanish subjects could obtain justice against Porto Ricans at a time when it might be feared that the embers of the old disputes between Spaniards and Porto Ricans were still aflame.

The plaintiffs, one of whom was the defendant in the action before the United States Provisional Court, further suggest that defendant was not served with process and never appeared, and that the judgment rendered against him by default was a nullity. This point does not appear to be pressed and there is nothing in it. The service was in strict accordance with the procedure established by the court and by delivering a summons at the usual place of abode of the defendant into the hands of his wife.

The plaintiffs further contend that if the United States Provisional Court had jurisdiction of the case and the parties,

in some way it had lost it, because in the course of its proceedings it disregarded certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which were binding upon it. But clearly no such question is open on a collateral attack, such at this is, and we need delay no further upon that point.

There were other questions in the case, which the view we have taken of it render it unnecessary to consider.

We are of the opinion that the judgment of the United States Provisional Court was not a nullity and that the sale on execution, under which the defendants claim, conveyed to them a good title. As the court below took the same view, its judgment is

Affirmed.

By agreement No. 128, Santiago v. Gonzalez y Rodriguez; No. 129, Santiago v. Moscoso; No. 130, Santiago v. Ana Semidey, widow of Antonio Costa, abide the result of this case, and corresponding judgments will be entered in them.

TUPIÑO v. LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE

FILIPINAS.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

No. 148. Argued April 14, 15, 1909.—Decided May 24, 1909. Distinct judgments in favor of or against distinct parties, though in the same record, cannot be joined to give this court jurisdiction. While in case of joint entry and ouster, where the answer of all defendants takes issue without setting up separate claims to distinct parcels, and the judgment for recovery of possession is against all defendants jointly, the measure of appellate jurisdiction is the value of the whole land, Friend v. Wise, 111 U. S. 797, where there is no allegation of joint ownership or joint possession, and the controversy with each defendant relates to a separate and distinct parcel, and judgment is rendered separately, the measure as to each defendant is the value of his separate parcel. Tupper v. Wise, 110 U. S. 398. Nor does this court have jurisdiction in such a case if the judgment

were jointly against the defendants for damages where the total amount awarded is less than the jurisdictional amount.

Writ of error to review 2 Philippine, 142, dismissed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. John C. Gittings, with whom Mr. William Steele Grey and Mr. Justin M. Chamberlain were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Aldis B. Browne, with whom Mr. Alexander Britton, Mr. W. A. Kincaid and Mr. A. H. Blount were on the brief, for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE MOODY delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant in error brought this action for the recovery of certain lands, in the Court of First Instance of the Philippine Islands, against eighty-four persons, who are now the plaintiffs in error. The prayer of the complaint was for restoration of possession, for damages and an injunction against further. disturbance of the plaintiff's right. The Court of First Instance rendered judgment for the plaintiff, awarding the relief prayed for, and the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. The case is now here upon writ of error, accompanied by a large number of assignments of error. The defendant in error has moved to dismiss the writ for lack of jurisdiction of this court to entertain it, and that motion must first receive consideration.

1

The jurisdiction of this court is rested by the plaintiffs in error solely upon the ground that the value of the real estate in controversy exceeds the sum of $25,000. Section 10 of act approved July 1, 1902, part 1, 32 Stat. 691, 695. The disposition of the motion to dismiss turns upon the question whether, within the true meaning of the statute, land of the value of $25,000 was in controversy. In the solution of this question it is useful to examine the pleadings, the course of the trial and the judgment.

The company alleged itself to be the owner of lands known as the Hacienda de San Luis y la Concepcion, having certain defined boundaries and an area of some four thousand hectareas. The complaint further alleged "that the defendants above named, for more than one and less than six years ago, illegally seized and continued to hold certain portions of the said property," having an "area of four hundred and fortysix hectareas, seventy-nine areas and four centiareas as to the fields, and four hectareas, approximately, as to the lots on which their houses and warehouses are built, distributed among distinct and separate parcels, but all within the perimeter of the said estate above described, and for a better understanding thereof the following statement is given of the parcels held by each one of the defendants." There then follows eighty-four separate descriptions of the separate holdings of each of the defendants. The case of Miguel Tupiño is agreed upon by the parties as typical of the others, and the allegation with respect to him is, "Miguel Tupiño has a lot of six areas with a dwelling and two warehouses thereon, and two fields, containing four hectareas and fifty areas and two hectareas and twenty-five areas, respectively." Then follows an allegation that "the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of nine thousand Mexican pesos by reason of the unlawful detention above described," and the complaint closes with the prayer before stated.

Each of the defendants filed separate answers. The answer of Tupiño may be taken as a type. In it he denies the title of the plaintiff and that it suffered the damages alleged; denies, specifically, that the plaintiff had a record title to the portion of the land described as possessed by him; denies that that portion of the land was situated within the boundaries of the Hacienda de San Luis y la Concepcion; denies that the plaintiff is the owner of the portion of the land described as possessed by the defendant or any part thereof, or that the plaintiff has ever been entitled to the possession thereof; denies that the plaintiff has any interest in the portion of the land