against whom a prosecution has been commenced in a state court on account of an act done under color of his office to remove the cause, "at any time before the trial thereof," into the "Circuit Court next to be holden in the district," but it does not require the petition for removal to be filed at the place where the next session of the Circuit Court is to be held after indictment, where there are several places of holding court in the district, and it may be filed, at any time before trial, at the place where the next term thereafter is to be held. Such requirement is directory only, and the filing of the petition in the clerk's office at a different place is not ground for remanding the cause to the state court. Virginia r. Felts, (1904) 133 Fed. 85. To render an action against an officer of the United States removable from a state to a federal court by certiorari under this section, the acts which constitute the cause of action must have some rational connection with official duties under a revenue law," Vol. IV, p. 265, sec. 647. Congress has not conferred jurisdiction on the Circuit Courts over controversies between citizens of different states because, apart from diversity of citizenship, they may have Vol. IV, p. 265, sec. 1. Circuit Courts are now abolished by Judicial Code, sec. 289, see ante, title JUDICIARY, p. 249 of this Supplement. The jurisdiction formerly exercised by them, especially that which is prescribed in the text section, is conferred upon the District Courts by Judicial Code, sec. 24, see ante, title JUDICIARY, p. 139, and the text section is expressly repealed by Judicial Code, sec. 297, see ante, p. 250. The provision as to the venue of suits is now in Judicial Code, secs. 51-57, see ante, title JUDICIARY, pp. 153-155. I. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS IN II. SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE AT COMMON III. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, 1232. V. SUITS BY UNITED STATES, 1250. VII. SUITS BETWEEN CITIZENS AND ALIENS, 1261. VIII. SUITS BETWEEN ALIENS, 1262. I. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS IN The general object of the Act was to contract the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and in some way affect the revenue of the government, and such fact must appear on the face of the complaint in the action or the petition for the writ. An action for libel against the Assistant Attorney-General for the Post Office Department and an inspector of such department, based on the promulgation by them of a fraud order against the plaintiff, does not meet such requirements and is not removable. People's U. S. Bank v. Goodwin, (1908) 162 Fed. 937. W. H. Thomas, etc., Co. v. Barnett, (1905) 135 Fed. 172, affirmed (C. C. A. 1906) 144 Fed. 338, was a removed action against a surveyor of customs to recover damages for acts done in his official capacity. Schafer v. Craft, (1906) 144 Fed. 907, was a removed action against a collector of internal revenue for the recovery of a tax and penalty paid under compulsion. This section does not include actions against officers acting under the postal laws. Lewis Pub. Co. v. Wyman, (1907) 152 Fed. 200. claimed title by grants from different states, even if it had power to do so. Stevenson v. Fain, (1904) 195 U. S. 165, 25 S. Ct. 6, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 142. and all doubts must be resolved against their jurisdiction. Joy v. St. Louis, (1903) 122 Fed. 524; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, (1904) 132 Fed, 629. The judicial power of the United States, vested in the federal courts by U. S. Const., art. 3, sec. 1, embraces all controversies of a justiciable nature arising within the territorial limits of the nation, no matter who may be the parties thereto, except so far as there are limitations expressed in the Constitution on the general grant of judicial power. Kansas v. Colorado, (1907) 206 U. S. 46, 27 S. Ct. 655, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 956. The entire judicial power of the nation granted to the federal courts by Const. U. S., art. 3, sec. 1, is not limited by the declaration in section 2 that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States," etc. Kansas r. Colorado, (1907) 206 U. S. 46, 27 S. Ct. 655, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 956. The cases and controversies prescribed by the Constitution for the courts to act upon judicially embrace claims brought before the courts by regular proceedings for the enforcement of rights, or for the prevention of wrongs. Ayres v. U. S., (1908) 44 Ct. Cl. 110. The term "controversies" in article 3 of the Constitution of the United States refers to cases in which such controversies are brought to the attention of the court, and not to quarrels, disputes, or controversies at large. So there could be no controversy of which the court could take or retain jurisdie tion without a cause pending. Hence a case which has been dismissed by order of the court is not a "controversy," but merely a dispute at large. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Larwill, (1910) 83 Ohio St. 108, 93 N. E. 619. Limited jurisdiction of courts. -The law is well settled that the courts of the United States, inferior to the Supreme Court, are mere creatures of Congress, and possess no powers except those specifically granted to them by an Act of Congress, and this limitation applies to all causes which, under the Constitution, Congress might have granted to the national courts jurisdiction to hear and determine. Lewis Pub. Co. v. Wyman, (1907) 152 Fed. 200. To the same effect see Stevenson v. Fain, (1904) 195 U. S. 165, 25 S. Ct. 6, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 142; U. S. v. Mar Ying Yuen, (1903) 123 Fed. 159; U. S. v. Barrett, (1905) 135 Fed. 189; Risley v. Utica, (1909) 168 Fed. 737. Under U. S. Const., art. 3, providing that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish, an inferior court need not possess all the powers and subjects of jurisdiction of every other inferior court of the United States. James t. U. S., (1903) 38 Ct. Cl. 615, reversed on other grounds in (1906) 202 U. S. 401, 26 S. Ct. 685, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 1079. Since federal courts exercise but a limited jurisdiction, conferred by the Federal Constitution and laws, there is no presumption in favor of their jurisdiction which must affirmatively appear of record. Yeandle v. Pennsylvania R. Co., (C. C. A. 1909) 169 Fed. 938; Newcomb v. Burbank, (C. C. A. 1910) 181 Fed. 334. An admission made on the trial of an action in the Circuit Court, of "the liability of defendant in this case and everything as alleged except the measure of damages," does not cure the omission of the declaration to allege facts giving the court jurisdiction. Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. Reddick, (C. C. A. 1908) 160 Fed. 898. At law and in equity. The Circuit Courts of the United States have a jurisdiction in law and a jurisdiction in equity, vested in the same judges. Armstrong Cork Co. v. Merchants' Refrigerating Co., (C. C. A. 1910) 184 Fed. 199. II. SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE AT COMMON LAW OR IN EQUITY. "Of a civil nature.” - A claim for future alimony under a judgment of a state court is an action of a civil nature within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, other jurisdictional requisites being present. Israel v. Israel, (1904) 130 Fed. 237. The Massachusetts Employers' Liability Act, which authorizes an action to recover damages for the death of an employee, to be "assessed with reference to the degree of culpability of the employer or of the person for whose negligence the employer is liable,” is not a penal statute in such sense that an action based thereon may not be maintained in a federal court. Malloy v. American Hide, etc., Co., (1906) 148 Fed. 482. In equity. The equity jurisdiction of the federal courts is the same as that possessed by the High Court of Chancery in England, and is uniform throughout the states. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Flynn, (1910) 180 Fed. 565. The equity jurisdiction of the federal courts is uniform throughout the states and not subject to limitation or restraint by state legislation. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Flynn, (1910) 180 Fed. 565. The jurisdiction of a federal court was not granted by, and may not be annulled or impaired by, the law of any state. Mechanics' Ins. Co. v. C. A. Hoover Distilling Co., (C. C. A. 1910) 182 Fed. 590. A state statute precluding interference by a court of equity with the collection of taxes by injunction does not apply to the federal courts. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Trapp, (C. C. A. 1911) 186 Fed. 114. Where federal jurisdiction attaches at law, it attaches for some purpose in equity, and vice versa. Whelan . Enterprise Transp. Co., (1908) 164 Fed. 95. The jurisdiction in equity in the federal courts is concurrent with that of law; and in matters requiring an accounting, which would be difficult or impracticable for a jury to make, a court of equity will entertain jurisdiction. London Guarantee, etc., Co. v. Bell Telephone Co., (1909) 171 Fed. 278. A federal court of equity is not without jurisdiction of a suit expressly authorized by a state statute, and in which equity alone can afford the entire relief sought, because of the fact that legal questions are also involved. New Jersey, etc., Land, etc., Co. v. Gardner-Lacy Lumber Co., (C. C. A. 1910) 178 Fed. 772, reversing (1908) 161 Fed. 768. A proceeding by a stockholder or creditor of a corporation for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver for the corporation as an insolvent, under the New Jersey Corporation Act (P. L. 1896, p. 298, sec. 65), which authorizes such proceeding in the Court of Chancery whenever a corporation shall become insolvent or suspend its ordinary business for want of funds, is one involving a money controversy, so as to that extent to be within the jurisdiction of a federal court, where diversity of citizenship exists and the requisite amount is in dispute. Jacobs v. Mexican Sugar Co., (1904) 130 Fed. 589. The federal courts enforce a vendor's lien under the general rule in equity, when not in contravention of the jurisprudence of the state in which the suit is brought. Wilson v. Plutus Min. Co., (C. C. A. 1909) 174 Fed. 317. A federal court in equity has jurisdiction to disregard or enjoin enforcement of an unconscionable judgment of the state or national court for new causes, such as fraud, accident, or mistake, which led the court into rendition of a wrong judgment, or prevented the judgment defendant from availing himself of a meritorious defense. Herton v. Stegmyer, (C. C. A. 1910) 175 Fed. 756. Jurisdiction stated of the federal court to enforce the trust impressed upon the property of a decedent in favor of his creditors, heirs, and legatees. McClellan v. Carland, (C. C. A. 1911) 187 Fed. 915. The existence of a remedy at law in a state court does not oust a federal court of jurisdiction in equity, under the rule that a federal court of equity, following the chancery precedents, does not inquire concerning the remedies available in a state court, but whether a federal court of law offers an adequate remedy, which inquiry is confined to the remedies in the federal courts, regardless of the antiquity of the remedies offered by the state. Borden's Condensed Milk Co. v. Baker, (C. C. A. 1910) 177 Fed. 906, reversing (1909) 168 Fed. 111. In determining whether or not a complainant has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law which will deprive a federal court of equity of jurisdiction, recourse is to be had to the principles of equity, and not to the statutes of the state in which the court sits. Empire Circuit Co. v. Sullivan, (1909) 169 Fed. 1009. And see also R. S. sec. 723, 4 Fed. Stat. Annot. 530, and the note to the corresponding place, infra, in this Supplement. Jurisdiction of bills to perpetuate testimony, see R. S. sec. 866, 3 Fed. Stat. Annot. 20, and note p. 1061 of this Supplement. Effect of state legislation. The power of the federal courts was not granted by, and may not be revoked, impaired, or restricted by, any law or act of a state. Brun v. Mann, (1906) 151 Fed. 145, 80 C. C. A. 513; Collin County Nat. Bank v. Hughes, (C. C. A. 1907) 155 Fed. 389; Butler Bros. Shoe Co. v. U. S. Rubber Co., (C. C. A. 1907) 156 Fed. 1; Dunlop v. Mercer, (C. C. A. 1907) 156 Fed. 545. The Constitution and laws of the United States confer jurisdiction and the duty on the national courts to enforce their judgments and to decide by their own independent judgment every controversy which affects their complete execution, and the power cannot be limited or diminished by the legislation of the states or the decisions of their courts. Brun . Mann, (1906) 151 Fed. 145, 80 C. C. A. 513. Rights created and remedies provided by the statutes of the state to be pursued in the state courts may be administered in the national courts, either at law or in equity, or in admiralty, as the nature of the rights and remedies may require. Platt v. Lecocq, (C. C. A. 1907) 158 Fed. 723, reversing (1906) 150 Fed. 391. Where the laws of a state enlarge the jurisdiction of the probate courts, which ordinarily embraces proceedings in rem in respect to estates of decedents, as the probating of wills and the administration of estates by which the property of a decedent is devolved, to include also suits formerly cognizable in the form of ordinary suits at law or in equity in courts of general jurisdiction, they are dealing with that which may also be subject to the judicial power of the United States. and, while they may properly regulate the jurisdiction of the courts of the state, they cannot restrict that of the federal courts. Spencer . Watkins, (C. C. A. 1909) 169 Fed. 379. If a suit, when viewed in the light of recog nized principles of jurisprudence, appears to be a suit of a civil nature at common law or in equity, it matters not that by a local statute exclusive cognizance has been in terms reserved to the courts of the state generally or to some specially designated local tribunal. Spencer . Watkins, (C. C. A. 1909) 169 Fed. 379. A state statute authorizing the maintenance of a suit to quiet title, although the plaintiff is out of possession, is an enlargement of equitable rights which may be administered by a federal court, and, having jurisdiction to entertain such an action, the federal court may determine any question arising therein which could be determined by any state court. Farr v. Hobe-Peters Land Co., (C. C. A. 1911) 188 Fed. 10, reversing (1908) 170 Fed. 644. The provision of a state law prohibiting unqualified foreign corporations doing business in the state from suing in its courts, does not affect the power of the federal courts to determine controversies in bankruptcy proceedings or other controversies of which the Constitution and the Acts of Congress give them jurisdiction. Dunlop v. Mercer, (C. C. A. 1907) 156 Fed. 545. Proceedings relating to wills. Since the United States Circuit Courts in equity have the jurisdiction of the High Court of Chancery at the adoption of the Constitution, such courts have no jurisdiction of pure probate proceedings, quasi in rem, establishing the succession of a decedent's property, which at that time was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. Underground Electric R. Co. v. Owsley, (1909) 169 Fed. 671. But a Circuit Court of the United States may, as a court of equity, having the full jurisdiction of the English Courts of Chan. cery as they existed at the time of the adop tion of the Constitution, in a suit where it has jurisdiction of the parties, appoint a receiver of an estate pending the probate of a will, in the absence of the appointment of a custodian by the probate court, and this although proceedings for the probate of the will and the appointment of an executor are pending in such court which have been delayed by reason of litigation between parties in interest. Underground Electric R. Co. v. Owsley, (C. C. A. 1909) 176 Fed. 26. If the statutes of the state in which the property of the deceased is being administered give to its courts of general jurisdiction the right to entertain an original action to set aside the probate of a will, such a suit may be maintained in a Circuit Court of the United States, in case the parties are citizens of different states and more than $2,000 is involved. Pulver. Leonard, (1909) 176 Fed. 586. Where the controversy over the validity of a will arises between citizens of different states, the federal court has jurisdiction of a proceeding to contest it, which the statutes of a state authorize to be instituted in the courts of general jurisdiction of the state. Sawyer v. White, (1903) 122 Fed. 223, 58 C. C. A. 587. Settlement of estates.-Federal courts have no original jurisdiction in respect to the administration and general settlement of the estates of deceased persons. Thiel Detective Service Co. v. McClure, (1904) 130 Fed. 55. Federal courts act with reference to estates of deceased persons only to ascertain and enforce claims between citizens of different states after the state courts have probated the will or established intestacy. Underground Electric R. Co. v. Owsley, (1909) 169 Fed. 671. A person entitled to a distributive share of the estate of a deceased person may maintain a suit in a Circuit Court of the United States against the administrator concerning his right to such share. Pulver v. Leonard, (1909) 176 Fed. 586. While federal courts will not take cognizance of purely administrative proceedings in the settlement of decedents' estates, and will not invade the possession of the assets taken by probate courts for the purpose of administration, federal courts will take jurisdiction of a suit by a widow, a citizen of one state, against the executors of her deceased husband's estate situated in another state, to set aside her election to take under the will, as procured by fraudulent concealment by one of the executors, and to establish and enforce her claim under the statute of descents and distribution of the state, allowing a widow to elect to take a statutory estate instead of the provision made for her by the will. Eddy v. Eddy, (C. C. A. 1909) 168 Fed. 590. Under a statute relating to claims against the estates of decedents, which required such claims to be filed with the clerk of the District Court within the stated time to prevent the same from being barred by limitation and to fix their class, and unless approved by the executor or administrator they must thereafter be established by the court on notice in what is in effect an ordinary independent suit, it was held that the filing of a claim as so required by a nonresident creditor does not bar his right to maintain a suit to establish the same in a federal court where the jurisdictional facts exist, even if it be assumed that after such filing the matter is pending in the state court. Farmers' Bank v. Wright, (1908) 158 Fed. 841. While a federal court cannot interfere with property in the hands of an administrator, which is in the custody of the state probate court, it may adjudge the rights of parties before it in such property, and such adjudication will be binding on the administrator and may be enforced against him personally. Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey v. Steinhauser, (1910) 179 Fed. 137. A federal court has jurisdiction, equally with a state court of general jurisdiction, of a suit to establish a lien on the interest of defendants in funds belonging to the estate of a decedent and in the hands of an adminis trator; whatever action it may take, however, being subject to that of the probate court within its proper jurisdiction. Ingersoll v. Coram, (1903) 127 Fed. 418. Though a creditor of a deceased person may establish the validity of his claim by a suit at law in the federal courts, provided requisite jurisdictional elements are present, yet on recovering judgment, if the same is not paid, the creditor must ordinarily seek relief by a marshaling of assets in the state courts having jurisdiction of the settlement of estates. Thiel Detective Service Co. v. McClure, (1904) 130 Fed. 55. The chancery jurisdiction of the federal courts embraces a suit, where the requisite diversity of citizenship exists, to have the complainants adjudicated to be the heirs at law and next of kin of a decedent. McClellan 7. Carland, (1910) 217 U. S. 268, 30 S. Ct. 501, 54 U. S. (L. ed.) 762. The jurisdiction of a federal Circuit Court of a controversy between citizens of different states, presented by a bill which seeks to declare and foreclose an attorney's lien upon certain interests in the distributive shares of the property of a decedent within the district, is not defeated because the settlement of the estate is pending in a state probate court, where no interference with that court is sought or decreed, and rights between the parties arising from their transactions and contracts are adjudged and are decreed to be redressed only when the probate court shall have finished its functions. Ingersoll v. Coram, (1908) 211 U. S. 335, 29 S. Ct. 92, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 208. While proceedings for the probate of a will or the establishment of intestacy of a decedent's estate are in abeyance or in dispute, the federal Circuit Court has jurisdiction, at the instance of a noncitizen, to appoint receivers to preserve the estate. Underground Electric R. Co. v. Owsley, (1909) 169 Fed. 671. Where the surviving partner of a firm is one of the executors of the estate of his deceased partner, the settlement of which is pending in the probate court of the state, a bill in equity will not lie in the federal Circuit Court to compel an accounting between such executors, involving an accounting by the surviving partner of his deceased partner's interest in the firm, such proceeding being within the jurisdiction of the probate court. Moore . Fidelity Trust Co., (1905) 134 Fed. 489, affirmed 138 Fed. 1, 70 C. C. A. 663. Mandamus proceedings. - A federal Circuit Court has no jurisdiction of original proceedings seeking relief by mandamus. Knapp v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., (1905) 197 U. S. 536, 25 S. Ct. 538, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 870. Any legal right which a stockholder of a national bank may have to obtain an inspection of its books may be enforced in the state courts by mandamus. Guthrie v. Harkness, (1905) 199 U. S. 148, 26 S. Ct. 4, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 130, affirming (1904) 27 Utah 248, 75 Pac. 624, 107 Am. St. Rep. 664. Exercise of the function of parens patriæ for the determination of the right to the custody of an insane person is not within the jurisdiction of a federal court. Hoadly r. Chase, (1904) 126 Fed. 818, affirmed (1903) 129 Fed. 1005, 64 C. C. A. 319. III. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. The jurisdictional amount prescribed in this section, viz. $2,000, is increased to $3,000 by the Judicial Code, sec. 24, first paragraph. See ante, title JUDICIARY, p. 139, of this Supplement. In what cases jurisdictional amount is necessary Generally. Federal jurisdiction in an action at law between citizens of different states does not exist, unless the amount involved exceeds $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Shewalter v. Lexington, (1906) 143 Fed. 161; Southern Land, etc., Co. v. Johnson, (1907) 156 Fed. 246; Turner v. Jackson Lumber Co., (C. C. A. 1908) 159 Fed. 923; Peters v. Queen Ins. Co., (1910) 182 Fed. 113. The fact that a suit in a federal court involves a federal question is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction unless the amount involved exceeds $2,000. Shewalter v. Lexington, (1906) 143 Fed. 161. The jurisdiction of a federal court must affirmatively appear from the record, and a bill for the partition of lands does not state a case within the jurisdiction where it shows the value of the complainant's interest therein to be less than $2,000. Southern Land, etc., Co. v. Johnson, (1907) 156 Fed. 246. On an application to a federal court by a shareholder in a national banking association for a writ of mandamus to compel the association to permit him to inspect a list of its shareholders, based on R. S. sec. 5210, the pleadings must show that the matter in dispute exceeds the value of $2,000 to give the court jurisdiction. Large . Consolidated Nat. Bank, (1905) 137 Fed. 168. But an action by a receiver of a national bank to collect a debt due the bank is one brought under authority of R. S. sec. 5234, and is within the jurisdiction of a federal court, regardless of the amount in controversy. Schofield v. Palmer, (1904) 134 Fed. 753. See also Rankin v. Herod, (1904) 130 Fed. 390; Rankin v. Herod, (1905) 140 Fed. 661. Interest and costs excluded. The amount in controversy is to be determined exclusive of the interest and costs. Turner r. Jackson Lumber Co., (C. C. A. 1908) 159 Fed. 923. Costs. Thus where a statute provided that when an insurance company refuses to pay a loss within sixty days after demand it shall be liable to the policy holder, in addition to the loss, for not more than twenty-five per cent. on the company's liability, and also for all reasonable attorney's fees for the prosecution of the case, provided it shall appear that the insurer's refusal to pay the loss was in bad faith; it was held that the amount recoverable for attorney's fees under such section should be regarded as "costs," defined by the state court to include all charges fixed by statute as compensation for services rendered by officers of the court in the progress of the cause; and hence, where a reasonable amount for attorney's fees under such statute was necessary to bring the amount in controversy up to $2,000, the action, though between citizens of different states, was not within the jurisdiction of the federal Circuit Court. Peters v. Queen Ins. Co., (1910) 182 Fed. 113. Interest. But where defendant refused to pay the amount due on an accident policy providing for payment of $2,000 in case of assured's accidental death, and there was no contract for interest in the policy, it was held that interest was not a mere incident or accessory to the matter in dispute in an action in a federal court in assumpsit for $3,000 damages for defendant's failure to perform, but constituted, with the amount of the policy, aggregate damages for the breach; and hence the action involved a sum in excess of $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and was within federal jurisdiction. Continental Casualty Co. v. Spradlin, (C. C. A. 1909) 170 Fed. 322. Absence of pecuniary value. - The Circuit Court has no jurisdiction of a suit to correct an ambiguity in the deed of a railroad right of way, and to restrain the removal of gates at a crossing in the inclosure thereof, where the value of the realty and the damage aceruing to adjacent property from the road's construction are not shown to exceed $2,000; and the fact that animals may stray on the track through the threatened openings in the inclosure, and cause wrecks occasioning great damage, does not help the case, since, when jurisdiction depends on a particular sum, suits where the right involved cannot be calculated in money are not within it. Oregon R., etc., Co. r. Shell, (1903) 125 Fed. 979. "Matter in dispute" defined. The value of the matter in dispute, on which the jurisdiction of the federal Circuit Court is based, is the value of that which complainant seeks to recover, or the value of that which defendant will lose if complainant obtains the recovery he seeks. Cowell r. City Water Supply Co., (1903) 121 Fed. 53, 57 C. C. A. 393, reversing (1899) 96 Fed. 769. An action by heirs to set aside, as fraudulent, judgment rendered by a probate court against the estate, none of which exceeds $2.000, cannot be brought within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court by reason of the fact that the real estate on which the judg ments are liens exceeds in value that amount. McDaniel r. Traylor, (1905) 196 U. S. 415, 25 S. Ct. 369, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 533, reversing (1903) 123 Fed. 338. In a suit to set aside a conveyance of property, and mortgages given thereon, the value of the property and rights which will be affected if the relief prayed for is granted, and not the value of complainant's interest in the property, constitutes the amount in dispute, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of a federal court. Cowell v. City Water Supply Co., (1903) 121 Fed. 53, 57 C. C. A. 393, reversing (1899) 96 Fed. 769. In a suit by an alleged owner of 1/325 of certain real property, consisting of waterworks and their appurtenances, to cancel and avoid |