WEBER
v.
TRAVELERS' INS. CO.
657
WEBER '/7. TRAVELERS'
INS. Co.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. N01'fJI, Dakota. April 28, 189l.) REMOVAL oli' CAUSEs-JUBISDIOTIONAL AHOUNT-PLIIADING.
In an action for the specific perforlllance of a sale of land, plaintift alleged tbat she had performed all of her agreements, and asked for a conveyance, The petition for removal of the cause alleged that the matter involved exceeded, exclusive of costs, $2,000. Held, on motion to remand for want of jurisdiction, that, there bein« no question of interest involved, it was unnecessary for the .r.etition to allege that the amount involved exceeded $2,000, exclusive of costs and interest. "
In Equity. Motion to remand. M.· A. Hildreth, for complainant. H. C. Southard, for defendant. THOMAS, J., (orally.) This action was commenced in the district court of Richland county, state of North Dakota, and before the time for answering expired the defendant filed a petition in said court for the removal of said action to this court.. Said petition and the transcript of the record having been filed in this court, the plaintiff moves to remand, on the ground. that it appea.rs on the face of the petitionand the record that this court has not jurisdiction of said action. The matter in dispute, as appears by the complaint. consists of certain lots in the city of Wahpeton, Richland county, N. D., but the value of said lots does not appear. in the complaint, and there is no allegation contained in the complaint which this colirt can ascertain the actual value of said lots, and there is nothing that appears thereon that said lots are not worth over $2,000. The complaint is silent as to value. In the petition for removal it is said "that the matter involved in dispute in the above-entitled action exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of $2,000." All the other jurisdictional facts sufficiently llppearupon the petition and complaint filed. The contention of plaintiff upon this motion is that it does nc:>t appear, either upon the face of the petition or upon the record, that the matter involved in dispute exceeds the sum or value of $2,000, so as to give this court jurisdiction, and for that reason the case should be remanded to the state court. I do not think it can successfully be maintained that, if it had been alleged in the petition that the matter involved in dispute in the above-entitled action exceeded, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $2,000, this court would not have had jurisdiction ofthe cause. What is the effect of leaving out the word "interest" in the petition upon the facts as' disclosed by the record? The action is brought for the specific performance of a contract for the purchase of land; the plaintiff alleges that she has entirely performed her part of the contract, and that she is entitled to a conveyance of the property. No question of interest is involved, or can be involved, as might be the case if the action was upon a promissory note, bond, or some other evidence of debt on which interest might be computed. The question is, what is the value of the land which is the subject-matter of the action and the matter in dispute? The petition alleges that it (the v.45F.no.l0-42
'I'EDJ!:RAL ;REPOR'rER, ,vol. 45.;,!
land) exceeds in value the sum of $2,000. At least such is the natural and reasonable of the allagationsof{.,the petition, read iI? connection with, the gqwplaint.. The in is to be construed with' refel'ence to the stihjetltl.u1aUer iirid' the matter in dispute. andrea4iQg,them Taking the petition and the in ert#; ;Within the jurislliQtion ,of this Gl),Prt. and that the va).Ui:} of the said rElalproperty surn Of There ingoo of interestJ upon the think if was essential for the petitioner to use the term "interest" in his petition; in other words, the elimination of that taM from· his, petition does not entitle the plaintiff to have this cause remanded. The nlotionshduld be denied, and it is accordingly so ordered. 'j\, . ; :1][ " !.<,
'
1,··)'\
., .
l;;i!",;
,
.,
.... , '.;":
"'. CROOK ill
,1::
et'
'::
',)
"
Own,. D.WalihindtOn. - lV. D.'March 4, #91.) , ," , - · ,1',,' !; , 'i ,I , i ·
. ,I
CAUSBs:..mI'VWBali: e!Tt.IIJBNBxir. ,,: ','" ':', in a ,C9urtof Washillgton territory,anp:which was pending . admission of the'state of. Washinll"ton into tbilUnion; aud involVing ·,"ouly' controversy ,betllteen'cltizeu& of' a iI'ate: and citizen'll lilf: Isaid ,territory, dots ,; accpunt' of, t..he pal,'tillS" within ,the j u,risdictlono! a United States cirl;U1tcourt, and 1s not transferable the1'eto, unless the jUrisdiCtion call be predioated UpOD:80IDe other groun(L,. ""', ' : . ' . " <81IUabtUI by tMOouTt.) ,,: ,: i" , ' i . " q8S6· CIJ1D,meIlcell
At Law, . ,Pown ·... ,', "" <!c; for C/:,ook,.,,, ! ,D()f)little, PritchAJ,rrJ, .¢ Stevens, Carroll" Coiner <!c DaviS, and G.S.GrQScup" for other, defendants. "i' " '
.. '.$
HANFORD,
J.' By a stipulation, of the parties this case was transferred
to tbis court from ·the superior court of Pierce. county. . In doing so it
was assumedthatthis 'court would.: have jurisdiction by reason of the fact that the plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania; and the· defendant Mrs. Crook isa citizen of the .state of Maryland,and the other defendants are all citizens of·the stateof.Washington. The case was menced in a territorial qistrict court:, and was pending at the: time of the admission of the stateiof Washingtoninto the Union. Whetherit is one ofwbich this courtis:given jurisdiiotionisaquestion $wera true interpretatio'n of section 23 of,the-enabling act. ;,2581. U. S. 683. Between ,and ,Mrs.' Croak there appears to be no controversy j certaibly no, separate'aDd .severable oontroversy.. The other defendant-s are;'Rll citizens of the state of Washington,: and were at the time the suit wli$ commenced: Jresidents oftha territory of Washington,