UNITED .STATES V. KEXTUCKY .RIVEn, MILLS.
273 al.
UNITED STATES 'D. KENTUCKY RIVER MILLS et
(Circuit Court, D. Kentuc7cy. January 19,1891.) OmOUIT COURTs-JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT-SUITS BY THE UNITED STATES.
Act Aug. 18, 1888, provides that the United States circuit courts shall have jurisdiction of civil suits, "where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs. the sum or value of 12,000, and arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintifrs or petitioners, or in which there shall be a controversy between the citizens of difrerent states, or .in:whioh the matter in dilipute exceeds, exclusive of intel'est and costs, the sum or value aforesaid, or a contl'oversy between the citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of difrerent states, or a controversy between citizens of a state and, foreign states, citizens, or subjects, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid." Held, that the limitation as to amount does not apply to suita in which the United States ali! plaintiffs or petitioners.
At Law. Gwrge W. Jolly, U. S. Atty. Thomas B. Hinea, for commissioners of sinking fund. D. W. Liruuey, for Kentucky River Mills. BARR, J. The plaintiff has sued the defendant the Kentucky River Mills for the rent of land and water-power from the Kentucky riv,er, '!lsed by it, under the provisions of a lease made by the sinking fund commissioners of the state of Kentucky with said mill company, whioh lease is still a subsisting one under the terms of the act of cession made by the state of Kentucky to the United States. The amount sued for is less than' $2,000, exclusive of interest and cost, and the question is whether this court hll,S jurisdiction of the case; .. This depends upon the construction of the act approved August 13, 1888, amending the judiciaryact afMarch 3, 1875. A brief history of the legislation of congress previous to this act will perhaps aid in a proper construction of that act. The aet of 1789 gave the circuit courts jurisdiction in suits of a civil nature, at common law and in equity, and limited them to those where the matter in dispute exc:;eeded $500 in amount or value, even though the United States were the plaintiffs or petitioners. The circuit courts were given jurisdiction of all cases, in law or equity, arising under the revenue laws of the United States, without limit as to the amount in, :controversy, by the act of March 2, 1833. See 4 St. at Large, p. 632. And a similar jurisdiction was givell the circuit courts of cases under the postal laws by the act of March 2, 1845. And the jurisdiction of circuit courts was further extended by subsequent acts to embrace all cases arising under the internal revenue laws. Thus the law stood when the revision of the statutes was made, in 1873. The Revised Statutes conferred this jurisdiction on the circuit court in separate or enlarging it,.except that in suits at common law the jurisdiction was given without limit as to amQunt in disp\;lte, when, States were plaintiffs. The first section of the act of March 3,1875, enactedv.45F.no.5-18
274
FEDERAL REPOR'I'ER,
vol. ·45.
"That the circuit courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the CO(ltts o( the states, of of a.civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, Of treaties made,' or which shall be made, their authoritY,or in wlJicb the United States.are plaintiffs or petitioners, or in which; there shall be "a controversy between citizens of different'states, or a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming lands of different' states. Of a controversy bet:ween citizens of a state an<lf4ljeign states, or,sLJbjects." '., ",," This act repealed all acts lind of acts itiWilfflot.'with its provisions;' the third 8ubsectionofsection629 of the Revised Statutes was',repealed, by' it. ,'U.S.v.'Hu.ffiriaster, 3$,','trM.Rep. 81., But it the jurisdiction of c0u.ttil1sl'ecial'cl1ses over particular'subjects which that' court had laws.' U.S. v. Mooney, 116 U. S. 107, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304. It, however, applied the , limitation of $SOO to all the cases in which jurisdiction was given by the first section of the nct, so that under the act of"lS:f5 the matter in dispute must have exceeded:SS00'jifMt'of those lipedialcasesof which the circuit court had jurisdiction because of aots and 'the terof . . . ." ' . . " " " , 'The::tirstsection of theactofAugust13,188S, is asf<Jlows: "'thlit:tpe circuit c()\irtsiof the States1sfJaU' tile dourts' of of all suits' of 8 civil riattire; at comm'olflltw or in eqility, where, t\bematter'in dispute exceeds; exclusive of intereSt. and costs, the sum or valdli 'of two tbousaildi,dollllrs. and ,arising undlll': the CQnstitutioll or ws of UlellJpited Of; .Olalle. or wbici?shl'l,l; in. the :petltloners, Pf In whICh tiler\!. sJlal! be a J betweetl the citizens of 'different statE'S, pr in .which thllrrlatter in dispute' exceeds.'ex'Clusive of interest" lind costs;'thesutu or a contro. versybetween citizens o{tihe' same state'claiming llinds. of dlf.; ferentstates; or a controversy between. of If state and foreign statel!, citizens, ,or 'SIJ bjeets, in which the IDl\tt,er hI of in; terestl+134, cPSts. the sum or v,alue .,, . . , , This section is instead: of th'e fi·rst a'eetion of l1{ft of March 3, t8tS, lirid should be construed as that section, as to the qU(l'siion uDder con:' sideratltlniexcept fottha fact of tliEf'reiteration of ;the 'limitation as to the amount '(it value in dispute, and theconnectibn' in 'which that limitation is pfaced·. This'reiterl1tion is,withoilt unless it was the Intention of oongress to thus lirilitsomll of the 'cases, :and not others; This intention;clearly applies' to suits arisihgnuder theconsti'" tution I1nd laws of the Uliited States, aiM treaties: made by ity of the Vnited States, ahd to between citizens of different states; anti also of a state and eign states" tbis ;li'fuitation apply to controvetsies' ii1' whicn UllitedShttes'are or petitioners? We think'Dot,.·. If thiidhnitation isreiidwith' to each class, as I the verbiage permitS,' the cCl.D./'ttJicti'On'seems plain. Thus:""",' L
UNITED. STATES 'V. KENTUCKY IUVER MILLS.
270
"The circuit courts oUlte, 'United States shall have original cognizance '" '" of al!suits of a givi1nature.at common law .or in eqnity,wherethe matter in diJlpute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising, under the consti tutio,n or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their author. ity." lit
This clearly means that the amount in dispute must. exceed $2,000, as well as that the controversy shall arise under the constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made under their authority. But if the next class of cases over which the circuit courts are given jurisdiction is connected directly.with the antecedent part of the section, and read thus: "The circuit courts of the United States shall have original cognizance '" '" '" of all suits of a civil nl\ture, at common law or in equity, "'. '" ,'" in which controversy the United Sta.tes are plain. tiffsdr petitioners,"-...it would seem that the amount in dislJute was immateriaJ. Again, if we seplLrate the next cla-ssin this section, and read it thus: I' The circuit courts of the United States shall have originalcog· nizance, '" , '" of all suits of a civil nature, at COmmon law orin equity', ,; *.* in which there shall be a controversy between eiti· zens of different states, in which the amount in dispute exceeds, ex· clusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid,"-...there can be no doubt that the amount in dispute was intended to be jurisdictional. This method of reading this section proves, I think, that congress intended to make the amount in dispute jurisdictional in all of the classes of cases mentioned ex,cept two. Th.ese two are where the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, or where the controversy is between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states. In this last-mentioned class, the amount in dispute may be jurisdictional, when th"case is sought to be'removed from the statecoutt, but it is'not when the circuit court takes original cognizance. Ifthis.is not theproper constructidn,9f this section. then the United States must sue in equity causes, when the matter in dispute is betwee.n $500 and $2,000 in the state courts. The district courts have jurisrlictionin equity when the Statesal'e petitioners to $500, and notbeybud thaL sum. If we are allowed to consider the probable reason for the limitation of the jurisdictioIlQf the circuit courtEl to sums or values which are over $2,000, when the United. States are plaintiffs or petitioners, we can i1nagine no re.8.soIl.This 'has not been belore the, su preme Cblll'ti but It has been passed upon by two learned and able judges, and ICQllcur in their construqti0'i!. J?ales v. RailwCt'!J 00.,32 Fed. Rep. 673; U. S'V. Shaw; 39 Rep. 433. ... . ' On the merits of the c::ase, as presented by the pleadings and agreed facts; I, . of the opiniQn that the rent vnller· the lease passed to. the United States when they accepted the provisions of the acts of January 24 and March 22, 1880, which ceded' to them with the locks, dams" etc.· and that tbe,rent which accrued after, the ,30th of !AVril, 188.(),whenthe by Kentn,cky by actually' tilkitig 'p'ossesslori, Qelongs, tQ.
276
I'EDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 45.
of$180 per annum from the 30th of April, 1880, to.ruly 1,1890, inclusive, should be charged against the Kentucky Mills, but without interestuntil after June 30, The repairs, etc.,amoupting to $532.33, is to be allowed as a credit, but not the whole amount thereof;--::-only the balance due after applying the rent which accrued and was applied by the sinking fund commissioners, and which belonged to them. This was the between July 1,1878, and April 30, 1880. This balance, I understand the district attorney to consent should be credited. The payment by the Kentucky River Mills in September, 1884, to the commissioners of the sinking fund, was not a payment which will bind the plaintiffs, because at that time the rent was due the plaintiffs, by virtue of the acts of January and March, 1880, and the acceptance of them by the United States. The defendant had at that time actual notice of these acts, and the acceptance of them, and the fact that no previous claim or dAmand had been made by the United States did not authorize the niill company to pay the rent accruing after AprU30, 1880, to the state' of Kentucky, or the commissioners of the sinki1'lg fund. This fact, 'hOWever, withthesurroul1ding circumstances, prevents, I think, the plaintiffs recovering interest prior to April 30, 1888/ A judgment should be 'entered as indicated, and it is so ordered. '
HILL
et al. v.
GORDON
et 0.1.
(Circuit Court, N. D. F/,ortda. February 24, 1891.)
1.
FEDERAL COURTS-J'URISDIOTIONAL AMOUNT,-PRESUMPTION.
In an injunction suit to restrain the of a judgment rendereil20 years before, it will not be presumed that the amount involved was not within the JU1'isdiction of the circuit court, where the declaration contained several counts which together claimed a greater amount, though the' judgment rendered was for less than the jurisdictional amount.
9.
SERVIOE OJ!' PROOE.Ss-RET1JJlN.
Where there is personal service on defendant, a return in the name of a special deputy-marshal, instead of in the name, of the marshal, is a mere irregularity, to which objection cannot be raised by strangers to the judgment. "
S.
Tu-DEED,-R.EOORDING-;NoTIOE.
Where defendant was In possession of land at the time when jU:dgment,was ren'dered against him, and ,for two years after, the lien of such judgment'is superior to a tax-deed for such land executed before judgment, but not acknowledged and proved for record as required by law, as such deed, though spread bn the l'eCOfds, was not constructive notice to subsequent creditors or purchasers. ' Adve1'se possession for seven years, the statutory period in Florida, cannot defeat a judgment lien. " The holders of a are not estopped to enforce It bllcause of the land after it was entered have made, improvements, where sucb:' were bound to know that such judgment was unsatisfied, and that the tat-deed underwhioh t1;ley claim was not dUly recorded., " ' . , , ' · , " POSSESSION. , ' ,
f.
JUDGMENT
I.
ESTOPPEL-'-IliPAIs-JUDGMENr,-ENFOROEMENT.
IJ.
EQUITY-LAOHES-DBLAY IN ENFOROING
A delay'ot' 20 years in proceeding to enforce a judgment against land' does not render ,the thereof guilty of laohes. where there were prior that were liens ,on the land for more than its value, some of which a p1,lrol;l1lser of the land had bouRbt,and was holding against " "" ,., '