Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Cella Commission Co.

• Decision Date: 16 April 1906
• Docket Number: 1,992.
• Citation: 145 F. 28
• Parties: BOARD OF TRADE OF CITY OF CHICAGO v. CELLA COMMISSION CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

145 F. 28

BOARD OF TRADE OF CITY OF CHICAGO v. CELLA COMMISSION CO. et al.

No. 1,992.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 16, 1906

Henry S. Robbins, for appellant.

Chester H. Krum, for appellee Cella Commission Co.

For opinion below, see 121 F. 1012.

Before SANBORN and HOOK, Circuit Judges.

HOOK Circuit Judge.

The Chicago Board of Trade exhibited its bill to enjoin the Cella Commission Company and others from surreptitiously acquiring and using its continuous market quotations. Upon final hearing the bill was dismissed, upon the ground tat the quotations were the result of gambling transactions upon the floor of its exchange, and did not constitute a species of property which appealed to the conscience of a court of equity for protection. So far as these questions are concerned, the record before us is substantially the same as that in the case of Board of Trade v. Stock Co., 198 U.S. 236 25 Sup.Ct. 637, 49 L.Ed. 1031, and therefore the decree of the Circuit Court cannot be sustained upon the grounds assigned. In the Stock Co. Case no application for the right to use the quotations was made, and there was no proof that the Christie Company was conducting a bucket shop. In the case before us such an application was made, but was rejected by the Board of Trade. On the other hand, the proof here is conclusive that the Cella Company was conducting a bucket shop, within the accepted meaning of that term. So this difference between the cases is immaterial, for, it for no other reason, it is well settled that the Board of Trade is not required to furnish its market quotations to those engaged in such occupation. Board of Trade v. Stock Co. supra; Central Stock & Grain Exchange v. Board of Trade, 196 Ill. 396, 63 N.E. 740; Smith v. Western Union, 84 Ky. 664, 2 S.W. 483.

It is contended by the defendants that the record does not show that there is involved in this case the jurisdictional amount or value. In the bill of complaint it is averred 'that the amount involved and matters in dispute in this suit exclusive of interests and costs, is much more than the sum of $2,000." Assuming that this averment is traversed in the answer (which is doubtful), we are of the opinion that the evidence sustains it.

In a suit to enjoin a threatened or continued commission of certain acts the amount or value involved is the value of the right which the complainant seeks to protect from invasion, or of the object to be gained by the bill. It is not the sum he might recover in an action at law for the damage already sustained, nor is he required to wait until it reaches the jurisdictional amount. In City of Hutchinson v. Beckham, 55 C.C.A. 223, 118 F. 399, a decree was sought to enjoin the enforcement of an illegal license tax imposed upon complainant's business by a city ordinance, which was being enforced by the arrest of its employes. We held that for jurisdictional purposes the amount involved was the value of complainant's right to conduct its business without being subjected to such a burden, and not merely the amount of the tax demanded. See, also, Railroad v. Ward, 67 U.S. 485, 17 L.Ed. 311; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith, 63 C.C.A. 1, 128 F. 1; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Kuteman, 4 C.C.A. 503, 54 F. 547; Amelia Milling Co. v. Tennessee, etc., Co. (C.C.) 123 F. 811; Humes v. Fort Smith (C.C.) 93 F. 857; Railway Co. v. McConnell (C.C.) 82 F. 65; Smith v. Bivens (C.C.) 56 F. 352; Whitman v. Hubbell (C.C.) 30 F. 81; Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107, 17 Sup.Ct. 262, 41 L.Ed. 648.

In the case before us the Board of Trade claims a right of property in the market quotations gathered upon the floor of its exchange, and also the right to control their distribution and use. Upon the faith of the validity of these claims, it entered into a contract with two telegraph companies for the distribution of the quotations to those approved by it, which yields it an annual revenue of $30,000. The contract obligates the Board of Trade to use all reasonable endeavors to protect its property right in the quotations against purloiners thereof. The contentions of the defendants and their acts are wholly at variance with the existence of any such right of property or control. They assert, somewhat inconsistently, that the...