CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IlIl' TIDII
_nittA Jtatts OLESON
aud et al. 11. NORTHERN PAC.
R. Co.
(O(rcuU Court. D. Washington, 8. D.
September 9,1890.)
L
JURISDICTION-AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSy-PLEADING.
It is essential to the jurisdiction of a United States circuit court, in any case, that the amount or value of the matter in dispute must exceed j and tliis must be distinctly alleged in the bill of complaint.
9.
Where the object of the suit is to restrain the use of property by a party other than the owner, the right to use the property is the matter in dispute, and the value of right must determine the question of jurisdiction. (BylZab'U8 by the Court.)
SAME-INJUNCTION-MATTER IN DISPUTE.
In Equity. Norman Buck, for plaintiff. J. H. Mitchell and E. H. Sullivan, for defendant. HANFORD, J. This is a suit for an injunction to restrain the operaunlawtion by the defendants of a certain railroad alleged to have fully constructed in a public highway known as the "Almota Road," situated in the town of Palouse City, Whitman county, in this state, and which is an obstruction of said public highway, and specially injurious to the plaintiffs, who each own in severalty certain lots abutting upon said highway, the use of the highway being necessary to afford ingress and egress to ano from said lots. One Skeels, who is not a party to this suit, built the railway complained of for his individual convenience and use, in connection with the operation of a saw-mill which he owns. The defendant, under a contract with Skeels, furnished certain iron and materials used in constructing the road, and has done some work towards completing the railway, and proposes to operate it in connection with another railway of which it is lessee. The above-recited fa.cts appear by the bill and affidavits on file. The case has been argued and submitted upon the plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order and the defendant's demurrer to the bill. v.44F.no.l-l ' ,
FEDERAL REPORTER.
vol. 44.
The demurrer assigns several grounds, among others want of jmisdiction in the court, for the reason that it does not appear that the matter to exceeds the sum or value of in dispute between the $2,000. In my opinion this objection to the jurisdiction is well taken, and fatal to the case, and therefore it will be unnecessary to consider by an of the bill either of the other q,uestions raised, the particular defect m{mtioned shall be cured.'Byt-he statute defining the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States it is made essential to the jurisdiction of the court that, except in certain specified dispute must exceed the sum or :value of $2,000, cases, aqd costs. .25 U. S. St. 433.' invoking aid or protection from a circuit court of the United States must show affirmatively all the facts necessary to entitle him to the relief prayed for, and to authorize the court to grant it; and the sum or value of the matter in dispute, like every other jurisdictional fact, must be distinctly Co., 18 Fed. alleged in the biU.Fost.Fed. Pr.. §108,; U. S. Rep. 708. The case has been argued· the part of the plaintiffs as if the railway (which is allege,d to be Qf.the value of $6,00Q) were the matter in dispute; but I cannot agree that it is so. The suit is brought of a railway,' simply to restrain the use, by 'a party not the and the computirig the value of the matter in di$pute is not the same as in a suit to abate a nuisance, RS, for example, to remove an obmentioned by destruction .0£, this ,rail- . struction ,to tpe way. Tbe.',OQui't cannot by any process cause a destruction of the rail'way, or impair its value; because it appears upon the faceofthebill that parties not within the jurisdiction of this court have rights respecting it, which rights, of course, cannot be affected by any decree the court can lawfully make. The matter in dispute between these plaintiffs and shows, is the right of the defendant to operthis defendant, as the ate the railway mentioned. From· the allegations of the bill itCllnnot be ascerta,ined what the value of that right is, or whether it is of any value. .For. this rea$on only the demurrer' will be
on
,f
,UNITED
STATES v.TAYLOB.
: (OircuU Cowrt, D. Washington,S. D. November '1, 1890.)
Where a territorial c.ourt, by its final decree in a case, granted an lnJunction for the protection of a continuing right, the 'ease is after such deoree still a "pending" case, wit4in, tJ;1emeaning. oJ:" the twenty.tl;lird. section !>f· the alit providing for the creation of 'state governments for Washfngton an? other'territories, (25 St. U, S. 676.) and is traIisferable to the court which 'by sald act is made the successor of . saillterritorlal,l'0urt..,. . ' . . . . . 9. SAME.:.-J'URISDICTION-CON'l'EMPT-JUDGMlllNT. . . , ThejudgmeDtof a teri'i.tol1al courtin a case which, after the territory became a state, was lawfully to· a United States circuit court, is to be regarded: as having, by adoption,become a judgment of the circuit court, whioh QOurt has
I., ,
A
·