mortgages thereon for $475,000, and to declare his interest in the property free from the liens of such mortgages, the sum or value in dispute is the value of the 1/325 of the property, which complainant claims to own and seeks to relieve from the lien of the incumbrances. Cowell v. City Water Supply Co., (1903) 121 Fed. 53, 57 C. C. A. 393, reversing (1899) 96 Fed. 769.

Where plaintiff sued to quiet title and to set aside a deed of trust on certain land, and also to vacate a deed executed to the purchaser under foreclosure of such deed of trust, but asked in the alternative that, if the deeds be not set aside, she be permitted to redeem on payment of the mortgage debt, interest, and costs, the amount involved, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the federal Circuit Court, was held to be the value of the land, and not the amount required to redeem. Greenfield v. U. S. Mortgage Co., (1904) 133 Fed. 784.

Where suit was brought in a federal court to quiet title to certain property as against certain street improvement certificates amounting to less than $2,000, the amount of the certificates, and not the value of the land, constituted the subject-matter of the action, and was therefore insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Shewalter v. Lexington, (1906) 143 Fed. 161.

The amount of all the judgments against a municipality concerning which relief was sought, and which were directly adjudicated to be barred by the statute of limitations, and not simply the judgment fund in the hands of the treasurer, is the amount in controversy, for the purpose of a writ of error from the federal Supreme Court to a territorial Supreme Court, to review a judgment denying relief by mandamus, where the prayer was for a continuous levy of taxes by the municipal officers for the amount permitted by law annually to be applied in payment of the judgments. Beadles v. Smyser, (1908) 209 U. S. 393, 28 S. Ct. 522, 52 Ü. S. (L. ed.) 849, reversing (1906) 17 Okla. 162, 87 Pac. 292.

A suit by a surety for cancellation of a bond for $40,000, on which, if valid, complainant is subject to a liability exceeding $2,000, involves a sufficient amount to confer jurisdiction on a federal court. Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Moshier, (1907) 151 Fed. 806.

Where, in a suit to enforce a double lia bility of stockholders of an insolvent bank, the debts of complainants, who were citizens of Indiana, against the bank, a citizen of Kentucky, exceeded $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the trust fund to be collected from the stockholders was nominally $200,000, it was held that the amount in controversy was sufficient to sustain federal jurisdiction. Conway v. Owensboro Sav. Bank, etc., Co., (1908) 165 Fed. 822.

Where the primary purpose of a bill was to enjoin the execution of a contract for the construction of a city water system and to restrain the issuance and delivery of city bonds to the extent of $600,000 on the ground that the issue of the bonds was void, and the bill alleged that if the bonds were issued F. S. A. Supp. — 78

complainant would be required to pay in taxes a sum exceeding $10,000, such amount represented the amount in controversy for the purpose of determining federal jurisdiction. Helena r. Helena Waterworks Co., (C. C. A. 1909) 173 Fed. 18.

A controversy between a state corporation commission and a railway company, which involves not only the right to enforce against the railway company the payment of statutory penalties in excess of $2,000, but also the right of that company to carry on interstate commerce in the state without being subject to orders and directions of the corporation commission, which so directly burdened such commerce as to amount to a regulation thereof, which right is alleged in the bill to be of the necessary jurisdictional value, such allegation being supported by testimony, and found to be the fact, is within the jurisdiction of a federal Circuit Court, although a dispute of some $146 demurrage may have been the origin of the litigation. McNeill v. Southern R. Co., (1906) 202 U. S. 543, 26 S. Ct. 722, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 1142, modifying (1904) 134 Fed. 82.

In a suit concerning water rights, the thing in controversy is the right to the use of the water, and where that exceeds in value $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, a Circuit Court of the United States has jurisdiction. Morris . Bean, (1906) 146 Fed. 423. How ascertained Claim. The amount or value in controversy stated in plaintiff's complaint is the sole test of federal jurisdiction, so far as concerns courts of the first instance. Eisele v. Oddie, (1904) 128 Fed. 941. See also Hayne r. Woolley, (1910) 180 Fed. 573; Baley v. Woolley, (C. C. A. 1910) 183 Fed. 1021.

Plaintiff's allegations of value govern in determining the jurisdiction of a federal Circuit Court except where, upon the face of his own pleadings, it is not legally possible for him to recover the jurisdictional amount, or where such allegations are fraudulently made for the purpose of creating the jurisdiction. Smithers v. Smith, (1907) 204 U. S. 632, 27 S. Ct. 297, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 656; Hampton Stave Co. v. Gardner, (1907) 154 Fed. 805, 83 C. C. A. 521.

But when, from the nature of the action as set forth in plaintiff's complaint, there could not legally be a judgment for the amount necessary to the jurisdiction of a federal court, jurisdiction cannot attach, though the damages are laid in a larger sum. Vance . W. A. Vandercook Co., (1898) 170 U. S. 468, 18 S. Ct. 645, 42 U. S. (L. ed.) 1111; Battle v. Atkinson, (1903) 191 U. S. 559, 24 S. Ct. 845, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 302.

And the federal courts are required to take note of the fact, when it is a fact, that the plaintiff cannot, under the allegations of his petition, possibly recover as much as $2,000. and the allegations as to the quantum of damages must in such case be regarded as merely colorable, and made solely for the purpose of stating a case apparently within the jurisdiction of the federal court as to amount. Clement v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1907) 153 Fed. 979.

But a federal court will not dismiss a bill for want of jurisdiction on demurrer on the ground that the requisite jurisdictional

amount is not involved in the suit where the bill alleges that the matter in dispute exceeds in value such amount, and discloses no facts which contradict such allegation. North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, (1907) 151 Fed. 120.

On a bill to enjoin publication of complainant's biography in a set of books, an allegation that the right infringed is worth $2,000 is prima facie sufficient to confer jurisdiction of the subject-matter on the federal Circuit Court, in the absence of proof that the facts which he gave for publication in another set of books were merely formal, or such as any one might learn. Colgate v. White, (1910) 180 Fed. 882.

In an action to recover damages for depriving plaintiff of rights secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States under color of a state statute or law, the plaintiff is not required to allege that defendants acted maliciously, and a failure to do so does not authorize the court to determine as matter of law that only nominal damages are recoverable, and that therefore the action is not within the jurisdiction of a federal court. Brickhouse v. Brooks, (1908) 165 Fed. 584.

A matter in dispute exceeding the value of $2,000 is presented by a cross-bill which seeks to recover a balance of $1,700 due on a contract for the exchange of soda fountain apparatus, where the original bill, which was dismissed on complainant's own motion, asked for the cancellation of his agreement to pay $2,025 in consideration of the exchange. Kirby v. American Soda Fountain Co., (1904) 194 U. S. 141, 24 S. Ct. 619, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 911.

Recovery. Under the Judiciary Act the amount in dispute in determining the jurisdiction of the court is the amount demanded in good faith, and not the amount ultimately recovered. Denver City Tramway Co. v. Norton, (1905) 141 Fed. 599, 73 C. C. A. 1.

The amount in dispute in an action for damages, in which the damages are determinable by the jury, is sufficient to give a federal court jurisdiction, where more than $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, is demanded, and the facts alleged are such as to justify the good faith of such demand. O. J. Lewis Mercantile Co. v. Klepner, (C. C. A. 1910) 176 Fed. 343.

Where a suit against a mutual benefit association to invalidate an assessment involved a certificate for $2,000 and benefits, and defendant's allegation as to the amount involved was not traversed, it was held that the amount was sufficient to confer 'federal jurisdiction, notwithstanding a tender of premium. Enders t. Supreme Lodge, etc., (1910) 176 Fed. 832.

Aggregate of claims Generally. The value of the matter in dispute, in a suit to set aside judgments of a probate court establishing claims against the estate of an intestate, which are a lien on his real property inherited by complainants, on the ground

that they were fraudulently obtained by defendants acting in concert, is the aggregate amount of the claims whose allowance was procured in furtherance of the unlawful combination. MeDaniel r. Traylor, (1905) 196 U. S. 415, 25 S. Ct. 369, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 533, reversing (1903) 123 Fed. 338; on second appeal (1909) 212 U. S. 428, 29 S. Ct. 343, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 584.

In a suit by the several owners of water rights in a stream, joining as complainants for conveyance only, to enjoin the obstruction of the stream or the diversion of water therefrom by defendants, the matter in dispute must exceed $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as to each complainant, in order to give a federal court jurisdiction. Eaton v. Hoge, (1905) 141 Fed. 64, 72 C. C. A. 74, reversing 135 Fed. 411.

In a suit brought in a federal court by creditors of an insolvent corporation on behalf of themselves and all other creditors similarly situated, to recover property alleged to belong to the corporation, but to have been fraudulently acquired by certain of the defendants, where the claims of some of the complainants exceed $2,000, others may join although their claims are less than that amount. Stanwood v. Wishard, (1905) 134 Fed. 959.

Where county bonds were owned by the holders jointly, it was held that they were entitled to join as plaintiffs in a suit therein in the federal courts, and that the whole sum sued for, and not the value of the interest of each party, constituted the amount in controversy for the purpose of determining the court's jurisdiction. Thomas . Green County, (C. C. A. 1908) 159 Fed. 339.

In an action in a federal court on several notes, the jurisdictional amount in controversy is the aggregate of the judgment prayed for. Heffner v. Gwynne-Treadwell Cotton Co., (C. C. A. 1908) 160 Fed. 635.

The undivided interests of the joint owners and holders of the bonds and coupons on which suit is brought may be united for the purpose of making up the amount necessary to give jurisdiction to a federal Circuit Court. Green County v. Thomas, (1909) 211 U. S. 598, 29 S. Ct. 168, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 343, affirming (C. C. A. 1908) 159 Fed. 339. A person holding claims, each below the jurisdictional amount, but together aggregating more than $2,000, and constituting, when so united, a single cause of action, may, if permitted by the local rules of joinder, bring them all together for determination into a federal court. Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Erie R. Co., (1909) 172 Fed. 899.

The aggregate sum of the possible penalties sued for in several actions brought by the United States against a carrier under Act June 29, 1906, ch. 3594, 34 Stat. L. 607, requiring the unloading of live stock during transit, and consolidated, is the amount in dispute for the purpose of sustaining the appellate jurisdiction of the federal Supreme Court. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. r. U. S., (1911) 220 U. S. 94, 31 S. Ct. 368, 55 U. S. (L ed.) 384, modifying (1908) 159 Fed. 33, 86 C. C. A. 223.

Aggregate amount sufficient. Where a state railroad commission imposed a fine of $2,000 on each of two connecting railroads for through charges made on shipments, in alleged violation of an order of the commission, a bill for an injunction, filed by the companies, as joint complainants, alleging such fact, and that the commission threatened and intended also to enforce its said order with respect to future shipments, shows a sufficient value in controversy to give a federal court jurisdiction. Louisiana R. Commission v. Texas, etc., R. Co., (1906) 144 Fed. 68, 75 C. C. A. 226.

Where complainant sued to set aside special tax bills assessed against certain lots in a city, of which he owned the fee, and he was the equitable owner of other lots assessed, and the tax bills on all the lots amounted to over $2,000, it was held that the federal court had jurisdiction. Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., (1902) 117 Fed. 925, modified (1904) 194 U. S. 618, 24 S. Ct. 784, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 1142.

Where the assets of an insolvent corporation proceeded against under a state statute, exclusive of interest and costs, exceed $2,000, and the claims of the creditors joined in the bill exceed such amount, though no creditor has a claim equal to that amount, the jurisdictional amount is sufficient to give a Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction. Jones . Mutual Fidelity Co., (1903) 123 Fed. 506.

Aggregate amount insufficient. - Where, in a suit to restrain the enforcement of a franchise tax against a corporation amounting to about $3,000, it was averred that $1,117.04 of such amount was claimed by the state and the balance by the counties, cities, and towns for local purposes, and the bill

was not sustainable in so far as it affected the amount claimed by the state on the ground that the suit was really against the state, which could not be sued without its consent, the amount of the tax in controversy which remained was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the federal courts. Coulter r. Fargo, (1904) 127 Fed. 912, 62 C. C. A. 444. Claims or demands assigned for collection only, the assignors remaining the absolute owners, and paying pro rata the expenses of collection, including costs and attorneys' fees, cannot be added to the amount of the assignee's own claim to create an amount in dispute in excess of $2,000, for the express purpose of enabling suit to be brought in a federal Circuit Court. Woodside . Beckham, (1910) 216 U. S. 117, 30 S. Ct. 367, 54 U. S. (L. ed.) 408, affirming (1906) 142 Fed. 617.

Under a state statute which authorized the joinder of several causes of action against several insurance companies liable for a single loss under several policies, it was held that where, 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 $2,000. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., (1903) 123 Fed. 989.

Where a purchaser of real estate executed two vendor's lien notes for $1,200 each, one of which was transferred to each of the plaintiffs, and, not having been paid, plaintiffs joined in a suit in the federal court to recover judgment on the notes and foreclose the lien, it was held that the lien which secured both notes was but an incident to the notes, and that the two notes could not be added for the purpose of establishing an amount in controversy sufficient to sustain federal jurisdletion. Troy Bank v. Whitehead, (1910) 184 Fed. 932.

Suits for injunction. In a suit for an injunction in a federal court the amount in dispute for jurisdictional purposes is the value of the right to be protected, and where the requisite value is alleged and not denied it is immaterial how much, or whether any, actual loss has been sustained. Southern Pac. Co. v. Bartine, (1909) 170 Fed. 725.

In a suit by a railroad company in a federal court against a number of landowners to enjoin threatened interference with its use of its right of way through their lands, the value of the right sought to be protected, and not the value of the land constituting the right of way across the lands of defendants, constitutes the value in controversy for jurisdictional purposes. Louisville, etc., R. Co. r. Smith, (1904) 128 Fed. 1, 63 C. C. A. 1. In a suit by a carrier to restrain the " scalping" of nontransferable round-trip tickets issued at a reduced fare on account of gatherings expected to be largely attended from various parts of the country, the value of the business so sought to be protected determines the amount in controversy for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the federal court. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bitterman, (1906) 144 Fed. 34, 75 C. C. A. 192, affirmed (1907) 207 U. S. 205, 28 S. Ct. 91, 52 U. S. (L. ed.) 171; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Bitterman, (1906) 144 Fed. 46, 75 C. C. A. 204.

A suit for an injunction to protect a claimed property right, from which it is alleged and shown that complainant realized $30,000 per year, and which right is denied by defendant, involves a sufficient amount to be within the jurisdiction of a federal court. Chicago Board of Trade v. Cella Commission Co., (1906) 145 Fed. 28. 76 C. C. A. 28, reversing (1903) 121 Fed. 1012; Chicago Board of Trade v. Donovan Commission Co, (1906) 145 Fed. 31, 76 C. C. A. 16.

In a suit by a member of a nonstock corporation to restrain alleged illegal and ultra vires action by its governing body, the amount involved, for jurisdictional purposes, is the value of the rights sought to be protected; and a federal court has jurisdiction where it is shown by the bill that the mismanagement complained of, if not restrained, will result in the creation of debts, and may result in the loss of the corporation's property, which largely exceeds in value the jurisdictional amount. McKee v. Chautauqua Assembly, (1903) 124 Fed. 808, affirmed (1904) 130 Fed. 536, 65 C. C. A. 8.

In a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance imposing a license tax on plainant's business, alleged to be prohibitory,

com

the amount in controversy, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of a federal court, is the value of such business. Humes v. Little Rock, (1898) 138 Fed. 929.

In a suit to restrain certain voluntary labor organizations, and officers and members of the same, from interfering with the business of complainant, the amount in dispute for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of a federal court is the value of complainant's right to conduct its business, and an allegation in the bill that complainant will be damaged by the acts of defendants in a sum exceeding $2,000 is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Co. v. Montana Federation of Labor, (1907) 156 Fed. 809.

A bill by the owner of a number of tugs and barges employed in navigation which required them to pass through defendant's canal to enjoin defendant from enforcing certain alleged illegal regulations and charges states a cause of action in the nature of a continuing trespass, and where it shows that complainant is subjected to charges owing to such exactions amounting to some $1,600 per year, it discloses a sufficient amount in dispute to give a federal court jurisdiction. Chesapeake, etc., Canal Co. v. Gring, (C. C. A. 1908) 159 Fed. 662.

The jurisdictional amount involved in a suit brought by the New York Cotton Exchange to enjoin the defendant from receiving and using quotations of sales on such exchange until he shall have acquired the right to receive them from the exchange, or, with its consent and approval, from one of the telegraph companies authorized to distribute them, is to be measured by the value to the exchange of the right to control the quotations, and not by the rate paid by the defendant under his contract with the telegraph company furnishing him with such quotations. Hunt v. New York Cotton Exch., (1907) 205 U. S. 322, 27 S. Ct. 529, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 821, affirming (1906) 144 Fed. 511.

In a suit to enjoin the wrongful and unlawful interference with complainant's business, the amount in controversy, for the purpose of the jurisdiction of a federal court, is the value of the right sought to be protected, and a general averment in the bill that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds $25,000, together with further allegations, showing the extent of complainant's business which has been interfered with, and which will be interfered with in the future, unless protected by injunction, tending to show that the value of such right sought to be protected in the future largely exceeds $2,000, are sufficient, when not denied, to give the court jurisdiction. Evenson v. Spaulding, (1907) 150 Fed. 517, 82 C. C. A. 263, 9 L. R. A. N. S. 904, affirming (1906) 149 Fed. 913.

Where, in a suit in a federal court to enjoin the enforcement of a municipal smoke ordinance, complainant alleged that it was a foreign corporation, and that the amount involved was largely in excess of $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, it was held that the bill sufficiently showed the jurisdiction

of the federal courts.

Glucose Refining Co.

v. Chicago, (1905) 138 Fed. 209.

In a suit to enjoin the maintenance of a nuisance, the matter in dispute, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of a federal court, is not the damage resulting to complainant from the alleged nuisance, but the right of defendant to maintain the same, and the value of such right determines the amount in controversy. American Smelting, etc., Co. v. Godfrey, (C. C. A. 1907) 158 Fed. 225, 14 Ann. Cas. 8.

A suit by a minority stockholder to restrain a misapplication of corporate funds is brought in right of the corporation, and the amount involved, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of a federal court, is the value of the right of the corporation sought to be protected, and not the value of complainant's interest therein. Larabee t. Dolley, (1909) 175 Fed. 365.

A suit by a stockholder in a banking corporation for an injunction to restrain the acceptance by the bank of the provisions of the bank guaranty law of Kansas (Laws 1909, ch. 61), which contemplates a continuing course of business and an initial and annual deposit of money by the bank with the state treasurer aggregating more than $2,000, which fund may be used by the state in paying losses of other banks, involves a sufficient amount to give a federal court jurisdiction. Larabee v. Dolley, (1909) 175 Fed. 365.

Under a state law which permits any num bers of persons whose burdens as taxpayers may be increased thereby to join in a suit to enjoin the unauthorized expenditure of public money by state officers, the value of the right sought to be protected from invasion, and not the loss which may result to each separate complainant, measures the amount in controversy for the purposes of federal jurisdiction Larabee V. Dolley, (1909) 175 Fed. 365.

To restrain collection of taxes. — In a suit by an educational corporation to restrain public officers from levying and collecting taxes upon its property under an alleged exemption to its charter, the value of the matter in dispute for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of a federal court is not limited to the amount of the particular tax which has been or is threatened to be levied, but is the value of the right to the exemption claimed. Whitman College v. Berryman, (1907) 156 Fed. 112.

A suit to enjoin the enforcement of a tax levied on lands under authority of a state by the sale of timber from such lands, where it is not alleged that the tax is illegal, but merely that it was erroneously levied, is not a suit to remove a cloud on title. and the amount involved for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of a federal court is the amount of the tax, and not the value of the land. Douglas Co. v. Stone, (1903) 191 U. S. 557, 24 S. Ct. 843, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 301, affirming (1901) 110 Fed. 812.

Where suit was brought against a tax collector to enjoin the collection of certain taxes, the amount of which was less than

$2,000, the case was not within the jurisdiction of a federal court. Turner v. Jackson Lumber Co., (C. C. A. 1908) 159 Fed. 926. The Circuit Court has no jurisdiction of a suit to restrain the enforcement of a personal state tax amounting only to $80, though the tax constitutes a cloud on the complainant's title to realty the value of which exceeds $2,000. Purnell v. Page, (1903) 128 Fed. 496.

In ejectment to recover possession of land, including a mill site with the mill thereon, the amount in controversy to sustain federal jurisdiction is not the value of the whole property which plaintiff claimed as described in his complaint. Butters r. Carney, (1904) 127 Fed. 622.

In an action of ejectment in a federal court to recover a tract of land alleged to be of greater value than $2,000, the court is not ousted of jurisdiction because the defendant by his answer disclaims as to all except a portion of the tract which is of less value. Way v. Clay, (1904) 140 Fed. 352.

In a suit for an accounting by a surviving partner, the amount in controversy is the value of the entire partnership property, and where that exceeds $2,000 it is sufficient to sustain the jurisdiction of a federal court. Rogers v. Lawton, (1908) 162 Fed. 203.

In an action of unlawful detainer the federal court in Arkansas, by analogy to the requirements of Sand. & H. Dig., ch. 70, sec. 3449, requiring as a preliminary to the issuance of a writ of possession a bond in double the amount of two years' rent, will, in determining the value of possession as affecting its jurisdiction, regard the amount in controversy as a sum double the amount of the rent of the premises detained for two years. Battle v. Atkinson, (1903) 191 U. S. 559, 24 S. Ct. 845, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 302, affirming (1902) 115 Fed. 384.

A creditors' suit brought by two complainants, one of whom has a judgment on which more than $2,000 is due, exclusive of interest and costs, to subject property of greater value than $2,000, involves an amount sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a federal court, although the claim of the other complainant is less than that amount. Huff v. Bidwell, (1907) 151 Fed. 563, 81 C. C. A. 43.

In a suit by a stockholder on behalf of himself and other stockholders to secure the distribution of a fund belonging to a dissolved corporation, the entire fund is the amount in controversy for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of a federal court. Honsinger, (1909) 167 Fed. 619.

Kent v.

In a suit by a railroad company to quiet title to a specific portion of its right of way which lies more than 100 feet from its tracks, and has never been used in the operation of its road, the amount in dispute for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of a federal court is the value of the land in controversy, and not the value of the company's right to operate its road. Union Pac. R. Co. t. Cunningham, (1909) 173 Fed. 90.

Pleading. Where the declaration in a suit in the federal courts contained the common counts and a special count, each alleging the

amount in controversy to be $5,000, and a verdict was directed in favor of plaintiff for more than $2,000, it was held that the necessary jurisdictional amount sufficiently appeared. Chicago State Bank v. Cox, (1906) 143 Fed. 91, 74 C. C. A. 285.

In an action between citizens of different states in a Circuit Court of the United States, where the complaint contains the requisite allegations respecting the amount in controversy, jurisdiction is not defeated because other matters stated in the complaint have a tendency to show that that allegation is not well founded, unless they are such as to create a legal certainty of that conclusion. Henry v. Colorado Farm, etc., Co., (C. C. A. 1908) 164 Fed. 986.

It is not essential that a bill in a federal court should state the amount or value in controversy, if it appears to be within the jurisdictional limit, from the allegations of the bill, or otherwise from the record, or from evidence taken in the case before the hearing of objections to the jurisdiction. Robinson

v. Suburban Brick Co., (1904) 127 Fed. 804, 62 C. C. A. 484.

Where a bill in the federal courts to enjoin the business of buying and selling nontransferable railroad tickets alleged that the value of the business sought to be protected amounted to $5,000, exclusive of interest and costs, such averment will be treated as prima facie true for the purpose of sustaining the court's jurisdiction, notwithstanding an allegation in the answer that the amount in controversy is less than $2,000, until defendant has sustained the burden of affirmatively showing that the requisite jurisdictional amount is wanting. Pennsylvania Co. v. Bay, (1905) 138 Fed. 203.

A bill to enjoin defendants from diverting the waters of a stream in violation of complainant's prior right thereto, which is alleged to be of the value of $2,000, and also to recover damages, in the sum of $2,500, alleged to have been sustained by complainant by reason of the joint action of defendants in diverting such waters, shows the amount in controversy to be sufficient to give a federal court jurisdiction. Morris v. Bean, (1903) 123 Fed. 618.

But an averment in a bill in equity in a federal court that the amount or value in controversy exceeds $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, does not give the court jurisdiction, unless sustained by proof, where it is put in issue, and such issue may be taken by answer. Oregon R., etc., Co. v. Shell, (1903) 125 Fed. 979, affirmed on rehearing (1904) 143 Fed. 1004.

are

A bill to recover an interest in lands of a decedent, in which the only allegation with respect to the amount or value in controversy is that " complainants are informed and believe that the whole of said lands worth $12,000, and the amount demanded by them herein is more than $2,000," is argumentative, leaving the court to make a calculation, and, therefore, does not meet the statutory requirement to give a federal court jurisdiction. Dupree v. Leggette, (1905) 140 Fed. 776.