66 husband and father, the sum named and prayed for was thousand dollars;" it was held, that it did not appear that the case involved the jurisdictional amount.24 Where the plaintiff brought his action in the Circuit Court of the United States claiming that it sounded in tort, in which exemplary damages might be allowed and that consequently, the matter in dispute exceeded the jurisdictional amount, which otherwise would not have been the case; it was held, that he was estopped from contending, after the defendant's death, that it was not in tort, but in contract; and that, therefore, it might be revived.25 § 8. Value of the matter in dispute in ejectment, and other suits to obtain the possession of land. It has been held: that, 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 claims a less interest, or only an easement 2 in the same; together with any special damages that are alleged, and can be recovered in the suit. It has been held: that where a bill to recover an interest in lands alleged, "that complainants are informed and believe that the whole of said lands are worth $12,000, and the amount demanded by them herein is more than $2,000" was argumentative; since it left the court to make a calculation, and was insufficient to show the jurisdiction.4 Under the former statute where in an action involving the title to land, the plaintiff claimed the right thereto without making a payment of $2,200, demanded by one of the defendants, it was held, that the action was one involving more than $2,000 and was removable. Where no special acts of damage are pleaded, only nominal damages can be recovered; and the amount of damages alleged in general language cannot affect the value of the matter 24 Yarde v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 57 Fed. 913. 25 Iron Gate Bank v. Brady, 184 U. S. 665, 46 L. ed. 739. § 8. 1 Way v. Clay, 140 Fed. 352. See Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. Smith, 135 U. S. 195, 34 L. ed. 95; Dupree v. Leggette, 140 Fed. 776. Contra, Thompson V. Kendrick's Lessee, 6 Tenn. (5 Hayw.) 113. See Jones v. Rowley, 73 Fed. 286. 2 Greene v. Tacoma, 53 Fed. 562; Butters v. Carney, 127 Fed. 622. See Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. Smith, 135 U. S. 195, 34 L. ed. 95. 3 See Way v. Clay, 140 Fed, 352. 4 Dupree v. Leggette, 140 Fed. 776. 5 Withers v. Johns Hopkins Place Sav. Bank, 30 S. W. 766. in dispute. Where the manner in which the land is used enhances its value to the defendant, that fact must be taken into consideration in the estimate. It has been held: that in an action of unlawful detainer in Arkansas, in the absence of an allegation of special damages, the value of the matter in dispute is no more than the amount of two years' rents, or the rental value for two years of the property in question, irrespective of its fee value.8 § 9. Value of the matter in dispute in action to recover possession of personal property. In an action or proceeding to recover the possession of personal property, it seems, that the value of the property sought by the plaintiff, or by the claimant, is that of the matter in dispute. It is not enlarged by a claim of special damages for injury to plaintiff's business, when the State practice would not allow the recovery thereof.2 In replevin, to collect rent by distress, the sum claimed as rent, if less than the value of the property replevied, but where replevin is brought as a means of trying the title to property, then the value of the whole; is the pecuniary test of jurisdiction.3 In a suit to compel the issue to complainant of a certificate for corporate stock, and the cancellation of a certificate previously issued to another, the par value of the stock was held to be the value of the matter in dispute. In a suit to compel inspectors to allow complainant an examination for a pilot's license, which they had refused to do, where the complaint alleged that the complainant was thereby deprived of a right given him by the laws of the United States, to his damage in "over one thousand dollars," and no objection was made in the court of first in 6 Way v. Clay, 140 Fed. 352; Elk Garden Co. v. T. W. Thayer Co., 179 Fed. 556, under Virginia Code 1904, §§ 2750, 2751. 7 Greene v. Tacoma, 53 Fed. 562; King v. Southern Ry. Co., 119 Fed. 1016. 8 Battle v. Atkinson, 115 Fed. 384; affirmed 191 U. S. 559, 48 L. ed. 302. § 9. 1 Peyton V. Robertson, 9 Wheaton, 527, 6 L. ed. 151; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, 29, 30 L. ed. 1083, 1084; Hoover & Allen Co. v. Columbia Straw-Paper Co., 68 Fed. 945; Ryan v. Seaboard R. R. Co., 89 Fed. 397. 2 Vance v. W. A. Vandércook Co., 170 U. S. 468, 42 L. ed. 1111, 18 S. Ct. 645; reversing 80 Fed. 786. 3 Peyton v. Robertson, 9 Wheaton, 527, 6 L. ed. 151; approved Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, 29, 30 L. ed. 1083, 1084. 4 Ryan v. Seaboard & R. R. Co. 89 Fed. 397. stance because of the inadequacy of the matter in dispute; it was held upon appeal that it might be inferred that the damages would exceed the jurisdictional amount. In an action to recover a claim of less than $2,000, begun by an attachment of property worth more, claimed by a receiver who removed the cause, it was held, that the value of the whole property was that of the matter in dispute. 1 § 10. Value of the matter in dispute in suits of foreclosure. In a suit to foreclose a mortgage or other lien, the amount in dispute, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction, is the sum sought to be recovered through the lien; together with any damages, not covered by the lien, for which judgment is prayed.2 But it was held: that a suit by the vendor upon a contract to pay for land in installments, where the complaint prayed the court to ascertain the amount due and to become due and to fix a time for its payment, in default of which defendant "be foreclosed of all right or title to interest in or lien upon said land;" was brought, not for foreclosure, but to determine the rights of the parties in the land, and that the value of the real estate not the amount due, was the matter in dispute. Where a default in payment of interest makes the principal due, the sum of both is the jurisdictional amount. In a suit to foreclose a mortgage securing the sum of $2,000, the bill alleged that plaintiff advanced an additional $2.25 to pay the fee for recording the mortgage, "for which defendant is liable to him." It was held: that the averment of liability was a mere conclusion of law; and that the bill, therefore, failed to show that more than $2,000 was involved. The value of the matter in dispute is not limited by the value of the property subject to the lien or mortgage. 5 Williams v. Molther, C. C. A., 198 Fed. 460. 6 Hoover & Allen Co. v. Columbia Straw-Paper Co., 68 Fed. 945. § 10. 1 Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, 30, 30 L. ed. 1083, 1084; Stillwell, B. & S. V. Co. v. Williamston, O. & F. Co., 80 Fed. 68; Wakeman V. Throckmorton, 124 Fed. 1010. 2 Lilienthal V. McCormick, 117 Fed. 89, 54 C. C. A. 475. 3 Squire v. Robertson, 191 Fed. 733. 4 Lowenthal v. Georgia Coast & P. R. Co., 233 Fed. 1010. 5 Less v. English, 85 Fed. 471, 29 C. C. A. 275. 6 Stillwell-Bierce & Smith-Vaile Co. v. Williamston Oil & Fertilizer § 11. Value of the matter in dispute in suits to redeem. In a suit to redeem land, the value of the equity of redemption is the value of the matter in dispute. Where the bill prayed, that a trust deed purporting to be security for a loan and a subsequent deed executed upon a foreclosure thereof be set aside, or in the alternative, that complainants be permitted to redeem on payment of the mortgage debt, interest and costs; it was held, that the value of the matter in dispute was that of the land, not the amount required to redeem.2 § 12. Value of the matter in dispute in suits to quiet title. In a suit to quiet title or to remove a cloud therefrom the value of the matter in controversy is ordinarily that of so much of plaintiff's property as is affected by the adverse claim.1 Where the complainant sued to recover possession of a part of a tract of land and to quiet his title to the whole, it was held that the value of the whole was the criterion.2 Where the land was part of a railroad's right of way, one hundred feet distant from its tracks, which had never been used in the operation of the railroad; it was held that the value of that part of the land, not the value of the company's right to operate the railroad, was that of the matter in dispute. In a suit to cancel a paper purporting to be a marriage contract, which, if valid, gave the alleged wife an interest in the property of the plaintiff, it was held, that the amount of the provision, which the woman would be entitled to receive were the contract held binding, was the value of the matter in dispute. Where plaintiff sued to quiet title and to set aside a Co., 80 Fed. 68; Bucyrus Co. v. Me- § 11. 1 Carne v. Russ, 152 U. S. 250, 38 L. ed. 428. 2 Greenfield v. U. S. Mtg. Co., 133 Fed. 784. § 12. 1 Parker V. Morrill, 106 U. S. 1, 27 L. ed. 72; Lehigh, Z. & I. Co. v. N. J. Z. & I. Co., 43 Fed. 545; Simon v. House, 46 Fed. 317; Riggs v. Clark, 71 Fed. 560, 18 C. C. A. 242, 37 U. S. App. 626; Felch v. Travis, 92 Fed. 210; Woodside v. Ciceroni, 93 Fed. 1, 35 C. C. A. 177; Cowell v. City Water-Supply Co., 96 Fed. 769; Cowell v. City WaFed. Prac. Vol. I-4 ter-Supply Co., 121 Fed. 53, 57 C. C. A. 393; Hyde v. Victoria Land Co., 125 Fed. 970; Building & Loan Ass'n of Dakota V. Cunninham (Texas, 1898), 47 S. W. 714; Sloane v. Kramer Bros. & Co., 230 Fed. 727, 730, quoting with approval the former text. 2 Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Weldon, C. C. A., 246 Fed. 265. 3 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Cunningham, 173 Fed. 90. 4 Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. 337. See Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Moshier, 151 Fed. 806. 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; it was held, that the amount involved was the value of the land, and not the amount required to redeem.5 Allegations in a complaint for the cancellation of a lease, and to enjoin the lessees from using the premises: that the value of the leased premises was $10,000; and that the rental value of the property was $2,400 a year; it was held: were sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Federal court. It was held: that the Circuit Court had 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 enclosure thereof, where the value of the realty. and the damage accruing to adjacent property from the road's construction were not shown to exceed the jurisdictional amount; and the fact that animals might stray on the track through the threatened openings in the enclosure, and cause wrecks occasioning great damage, did 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. In suits to set aside, as clouds upon the title to lands: a tax; 8 sessment for a street improvement; 9 and to cancel certain street improvement certificates; 10 it was held, that the amount of the tax, assessment and certificates, respectively, was the value of the matter in dispute; not the value of the lands affected.11 an as § 13. Value of the matter in dispute in suits for injunctions. In a suit for an injunction, the value of the matter in dispute is that of the object of the bill, namely, the value, to the plaintiff, of the right for which he prays protection; 2 or the value, to the |