lawful occupation of public lands," and the act to execute provisions of the treaties with China; 12 proceedings to review the decisions of the general appraisers 13 and under certain special statutes. Formerly Circuit Courts of the United States had jurisdiction, without regard to the value of the matter in dispute, of all suits at law or in equity arising under the patent, trade-mark, or copyright laws of the United States, or under any act providing for internal revenue, or revenue from imports or tonnage, or under the postal laws, or under any of the laws relating to the slave and cooley trade; of suits by the assignees of debentures for drawback of duties; and of proceedings by the writ of quo warranto prosecuted by a district attorney of the United States for the removal from office of any person holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, except a member of Congress or of a State legislature. It has been held that those courts still have jurisdiction, irrespective of the value of the matter in dispute, of suits at law or in equity arising under the patent and copyright laws,15 but not of those arising under the trade-mark laws,16 of suits at law or in equity arising under the revenue laws; 17 of actions at common law by the United States or an officer thereof, including in this term a receiver of a national bank appointed by the comptroller; 19 but not, it has been held, of

11 23 St. at L. 321. 12 24 St. at L. 409.

18 26 St. at L. 138; In re Blumlein, 45 Fed. R. 236; In re Dieckerhoff, 45 Fed. R. 235; In re Dowling, 45 Fed. R. 412.

14 U. S. R. S., §§ 629, 2159, 3213; 18 St. at L. 478.

15 In re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653; In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., 160 U. S. 221, 230; Miller-Magee Co. v. Carpenter, 34 Fed. R. 433. See U. S. v. Mooney, 116 U. S. 104, 107. A suit to enjoin a tax on a patent does not arise under the patent laws. Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co., 176 U. S. 68.

18

name of the United States for the benefit of a third person, it was held that it should be dismissed because the matter in dispute was less than $2,000. U. S. v. Henderlong, 102 Fed. R. 2.

19 Armstrong v. Ettlesohn, 36 Fed. R. 209; Armstrong v. Trautmann, 36 Fed. R. 275; McConville v. Gilmour, 36 Fed. R. 277: Stephens v. Bernays, 44 Fed. R. 642; Fisher v. Yoder, 53 Fed. R. 565; Brown v. Smith, 88 Fed. R. 565; Yardley v. Dickson, 47 Fed. R. 835. See Auten v. U. S. Nat. Bank, 174 U. S. 125. Contra, as to receivers of national banks where the matter

16 In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., in dispute is less than $2,000, held 160 U. S. 221, 230.

17 Ames v. Hager, 36 Fed. R. 129. 18 U. S. v. Sayward, 160 U. S. 493. Where a suit was brought in the

in Brown v. Ellis, 95 Fed. R. 1; Sullivan v. Swain, 96 Fed. R. 259. As to the agent of a shareholder of a national bank elected while its affairs

suits against such receivers where the matter in dispute, exclusive of interest and costs, is less than $2,000.20 The Circuit Courts also have jurisdiction of suits brought by or against receivers appointed by a Federal court," but whether their jurisdiction in such cases is limited to suits in which the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds $2,000, is a disputed question. They have also exclusive jurisdiction of prosecutions for all capital crimes against the United States and for depositing fraudulent papers in the archives of the office of the Surveyor General in California; and concurrent jurisdiction with the District Courts of all other crimes against the United States, except as limited by special statutes.23

22

The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction, irrespective of the amount involved, to try and determine any action, suit, or special proceeding arising within their respective jurisdictions, involving the right of any person, in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent, to any allotment of land under any law or treaty. The judgment or decree of any such court in favor of any claimant to any allotment of land has the same effect, when properly certified to the Secretary of the Interior, as if such allotment had been allowed and approved by him. This jurisdiction does not extend to any lands held on August 15, 1894, by either of the five civilized tribes, nor to any lands within the Quapaw Indian agency.24

The Judiciary Act of 1887 provides: "That all national banking associations established under the laws of the United States shall, for the purposes of all actions by or against them,

are being wound up, see Snohomish County v. Puget Sound Nat. Bank, 81 Fed. R. 518. There is a dictum that a corporation, such as a telegraph company which is an agent of the United States, can, in all matters affecting its existence as an agent, sue in a Circuit Court irrespective of the amount in controversy. W. U. Tel. Co. v. City Council, 56 Fed. R. 419.

20 Smithson v. Hubbell, 81 Fed. R. 593; Follett v. Tillinghast, 82 Fed. R. 241; Sullivan v. Swain, 96 Fed. R. 259. Cf. Gilbert v. McNulta, 96 Fed.

21 White v. Ewing, 159 U. S. 36.

22 The following cases hold that they are: Carpenter v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 75 Fed. R. 850; Sullivan v. Bannon, 81 Fed. R. 886. See also Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593; White v. Ewing, 159 U. S. 36, 39; Gilmore v. Herrick, 93 Fed. R. 525; Ray v. Pierce, 81 Fed. R. 881; Pitkin v. Cowen, 91 Fed. R. 599. See infra, S$ 17, 21, 249, 251.

23 U. S. R. S., §§ 629, 5412; 18 St. at L. 470.

24 28 St. at L. 305.

real, personal or mixed, and all suits in equity should be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located; and in such cases the Circuit and District Courts shall not have jurisdiction over them such as they would have in cases between individual citizens of the same State. The provisions of this section shall not be held to affect the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in cases commenced by the United States or by direction of any officer thereof, or cases for winding up the affairs of any such bank." It further provides: "Nor shall any Circuit or District Court have cognizance of any suit, except upon foreign bills of exchange, to recover the contents of any promissory note, or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment or transfer had been made; and the Circuit Courts shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the District Courts under the regulations and restrictions prescribed by law.” 26

The Bankruptcy Act provides that "the United States Circuit Courts shall have jurisdiction of all controversies of law and in equity, as distinguished from proceedings in bankruptcy, between trustees as such and adverse claimants concerning the property acquired or claimed by the trustees, in the same manner and to the same extent only as though bankruptcy proceedings had not been instituted, and such controversies had been between the bankrupts and such adverse claimants. Suits by the trustee shall only be brought or prosecuted in the courts where the bankrupt, whose estate is being administered by such trustee, might have brought or prosecuted them if proceedings in bankruptcy had not been instituted, unless by consent of the proposed defendant. The United States Circuit Courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of bankruptcy, within their respective territorial limits, of the offenses enumerated in this act." The Circuit Courts also have certain ancillary jurisdiction which is hereinafter explained.28

25 25 St. at L. 433. See infra, § 17. 26 Ibid. See infra, § 24.

27 30 St. at L. 552, 553. See infra, $ 25.

28 Infra, § 21.

§ 16. Value of the matter in dispute.- The value of the matter in dispute must ordinarily exceed, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of two thousand dollars. This signifies not the amount of any contingent loss or damage which one of the parties may sustain by a decision against him, but the amount in dispute between the parties in the pending suit. Thus, the reason that, on account of its probative force, the judgment may operate as an estoppel in a subsequent proceeding, or affect his rights against a stranger to the suit,' does not increase the value of the matter in dispute. Where the suit is upon a demand on which the law liquidates the damages for a default, the amount of the damages as liquidated by the law, not the amount named in the plaintiff's pleading, is the value of the matter in dispute;' but where the alleged cause of action is one in which the law does not liquidate the damages, the amount for which the plaintiff demands judgment is alone to be considered, unless it clearly appears that the amount named is merely colorable, and beyond the amount of a reasonable expectation of recovery. Should the latter fact appear for the first time upon the trial, it seems that the court would then be justified in dismissing the case at the close of plaintiff's evidence. In an action of debt on a bond of $100, the principal and interest are put in demand, and no more can be

§ 16. 1 Act of March 3, 1887, § 1; 24 St. at L., ch. 373. p. 552.

*Ross v. Prentiss, 3 How. 771, 772; Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 579; Bruce V. M. & K. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514.

3 Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 579; Bruce v. M. & K. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514; Mayor, etc. of Baltimore v. Postal Tel. C. Co., 62 Fed. R. 500.

4 Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167. 5 Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401, 407; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550, 560; Cabot v. McMaster, 61 Fed. R. 129; North Am. T. & T. Co. v. Morrison, 178 U. S. 262; Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co., 170 U. S. 468.

Smith v. Greenhow, 109 U. S. 669; Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401, 407; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550, 560; Gorman v. Havird, 141 U. S. 206. In

an action for damages resulting from

the death of plaintiff's husband and father, the sum named and prayed for was thousand dollars. It was held that the case could not be removed. Yarde v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 57 Fed. R. 913.

7 Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337; Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 115 U. S. 611, 616; Smith v. Greenhow, 109 U. S. 669; Mayor, etc. of Baltimore v. Postal Tel. C. Co., 62 Fed. R. 500; Bank of Arapahoe v. David Bradley & Co., 72 Fed. R. 867; Shields v. McCandlish, 73 Fed. R. 318.

8 Maxwell v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 34 Fed. R. 286, 290; Holden v. Utah S. & M. M. Co., 82 Fed. R. 209; Cabot v. McMaster, 61 Fed. R. 129. For what is sufficient evidence of good faith, see Peeler v. Lathrop, 48 Fed. R. 780; infra, § 293.

9

recovered except costs, though the plaintiff lay his damages at $10,000. The value of the matter in dispute cannot, therefore, exceed $100 with interest and costs. Where, however, a receiver claimed property attached upon a claim for less than the jurisdictional amount, it was held that the property attached, not the claim against the debtor, was the matter in dispute between the plaintiff and the receiver.10 In an action. for false imprisonment" or assault and battery, or in which exemplary damages may properly be claimed, the law prescribes no limitation to the amount that can be recovered; and the amount claimed by the plaintiff is the sole criterion to which resort can be had in settling the question of jurisdiction.12 In ejectment the value of the matter in dispute is that of the interest in the land to recover which the suit is brought, although the defendant only claims an easement in the same. 13 In a suit affecting the right to hold an office, the amount of the salary for the term claimed is the value of the matter in dispute." The value of the property sued for is not always the matter in dispute." Where a complaint contains several counts, each for a a separate sum alleged to be due, and disputed by the defendant, the aggregate of the sums constitutes the value of the matter in dispute.16 The value of the matter in dispute, in a suit for an accounting, has been said to be the amount of the disputed items

15

9 Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401, 407. 10 Hoover & Allen Co. v. Columbia S. P. Co., 68 Fed. R. 945.

11 Hynes v. Briggs, 41 Fed. R. 468. 12 Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401, 407; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550, 560. But see Maxwell v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 34 Fed. R. 286. See as to trespass, Brown v. Webster, 156 U. S. 328.

13 McCormick v. Gray, 13 How. 26; Greene v. Tacoma, 53 Fed. R. 562. See Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. Smith, 135 U. S. 195.

14 Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 173; Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167, 175; Armstrong v. Ettlesohn, 36 Fed. R. 209; Bernheim v. Birnbaum, 30 Fed. R. 885, 887.

R. 209; Bernheim v. Birnbaum, 30 Fed. R. 885, 887; Weaver v. Norway Tack Co., 80 Fed. R. 700. An assignee of several claims, each of which is less than the jurisdictional amount, may sue in a Circuit Court when the sum exceeds it, provided his bill is not multifarious, and that his assignors as well as himself have the requisite difference of citizenship. Bernheim v. Birnbaum, 30 Fed. R. 885, 887; Bowden v. Burnham (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R. 752; Davis v. Mills, 99 Fed. R. 39; Chase v. Sheldon R. M. Co., 56 Fed. R. 625: Bergman v. Inman P. & Co., 91 Fed. R. 293; Hammond v. Cleveland, 23 Fed. R. 1; infra, 24. As to multifariousness,

15 Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, see Fitchett v. Blows (C. C. A.), 74 29, per Gray, J. Fed. R. 47; infra, §§ 71–75.

16 Armstrong v. Ettlesohn, 36 Fed.