Local Union No. 497 of Amalgamated Ass'n of Street & Electric Ry. Employees of America v. Joplin & P. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 287 F. 473
• Decision Date: 03 March 1923
• Docket Number: 5983.
• Parties: LOCAL UNION NO. 497 OF AMALGAMATED ASS'N OF STREET & ELECTRIC RY. EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA et al. v. JOPLIN & P. RY. CO.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

287 F. 473

LOCAL UNION NO. 497 OF AMALGAMATED ASS'N OF STREET & ELECTRIC RY. EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA et al. v. JOPLIN & P. RY. CO.

No. 5983.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 3, 1923

C. O Pingry, of Pittsburg, Kan., for plaintiffs in error.

Clyde Taylor, of Kansas City, Mo. (John P. Curran, of Pittsburg Kan., on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN and KENYON, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN Circuit Judge.

Local Union No. 497 of Amalgamated Association of Street & Electric Railway Employees of America, an unincorporated union, the principal office and place of business of which was in the state of Kansas, and its officers, who were citizens and residents of that state, hereafter called the plaintiffs brought an action in the district court of Crawford county Kan., on behalf of the members of the union collectively, as they were expressly authorized to do by section 23 of the act of the Legislature of Kansas, creating the court of industrial relations (Laws Kan. Sp. Sess. 1920, pp. 35, 46, against the Joplin & Pittsburg Railway Company, a corporation of the state of Missouri, their employer, hereafter defendant, to recover $7,271.47 and interest from May 1, 1920, which they alleged the court of industrial relations, by its findings and order of April 23, 1920, had in legal effect adjudged, after the trial and hearing of the controversy between the plaintiffs and defendant regarding wages were due to the members of the union employed by the defendant for their services between March 3, 1920, and May 1, 1920. The defendant answered that the findings and order of the court of industrial relations referred to in the complaint fixed and prescribed a minimum wage scale that 'should be put in force and effect on the 1st day of May, 1920, and should continue in force for a period of 6 months thereafter,' and made an order that this wage scale 'be in effect on May 1, 1920, and continue six months thereafter, unless changed by agreement of the parties with the approval of the court'; that the defendant obeyed the order and paid the members of the union it employed according to that scale during that 6 months. The defendant also denied in its answer that the court of industrial relations had ever found, or had ever by order established, any minimum wage scale for the time between March 3, 1920, and May 1, 1920, and alleged that it had paid the members of the union during that time at the rate of wages prescribed by a prior contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, which was during that time in full force.

The defendant removed the case from the state court to the court below; a motion was made by the plaintiffs to remand it, which was overruled; a jury was waived; the court tried the case, found the facts as stated by the defendant in its answer, and rendered a judgment in its favor.

The first specification of error made by the plaintiffs is that the court below overruled their motion to remand this case to the state court, and this assignment rests on the fact that while the aggregate demands of the employed members of the union, in whose behalf the plaintiffs sued, amount to $7,271.47, no separate demand of any one of them exceeds $100. The test by which the question thus presented must be determined is this:

When two or more plaintiffs having separate and distinct demands unite for convenience and economy in a single suit, it is essential that the demand of each be of the requisite jurisdictional amount. Walter v. Northeastern Railway Co., 147 U.S. 370, 13 Sup.Ct. 348, 37 L.Ed. 206; Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U.S. 621, 36 Sup.Ct. 217, 60 L.Ed. 469; Title Guaranty Co. v. Allen, 240 U.S. 136, 140, 36 Sup.Ct. 345, 60 L.Ed. 566. But when several plaintiffs unite to enforce a single title or right, in which they have a common and undivided interest, it is enough if their interests collectively equal the jurisdictional amount. Shields v. Thomas, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 2, 4, 15 L.Ed. 93; Troy Bank v. Whitehead & Co., 222 U.S. 39, 32 Sup.Ct. 9, 56 L.Ed. 81; Davies v. Corbin, 112 U.S. 36, 40, 47, 5 Sup.Ct. 4, 28 L.Ed. 627; New Orleans Pacific Railway Co. v. Parker, 143 U.S. 42, 51, 12 Sup.Ct. 364, 36 L.Ed. 66; Illinois Central Ry. v. Adams, 180 U.S. 28, 39, 21 Sup.Ct. 251, 45 L.Ed. 410. The statutes of the United States provide that its District Courts shall have jurisdiction of all civil suits wherein the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, $3,000, and is between citizens of different states. U.S. Comp. Stat. Sec. 991; Judicial Code, Sec. 24. Note that it is not necessarily the amount of the claim or demand of each party, but the amount of the matter in controversy between the citizens of different states, that must exceed the $3,000. This action is brought by or upon behalf of the employees, members of the union, collectively, to recover the amount alleged to have been in effect adjudged to be due to them by the finding and order of the industrial court of April 23, 1920. This action was and is founded on that finding and order. The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint, and the defendant denied in its answer, and still denies, that that finding and order in effect adjudged that the defendant owed and should pay to the employees, the members of the union, collectively, $7,271.47, and this was and is the sole matter in controversy between them in this action. This action presents no controversy between them as to the share of this amount to which any of the union employees is or will be entitled, or as to the amount owing to him individually. The only controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendant is whether or not by reason of the order and finding of the industrial court the defendant was in legal effect adjudged to pay the plaintiffs the $7,271.47, or any of it.

In Shields v. Thomas, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 3, 4, 15 L.Ed 93, John Goldsberry, of Kentucky, died intestate, leaving a large personal estate, to which his representatives, after his decease, were entitled, but of which Shields obtained possession. These representatives brought suit against Shields in equity in a court in Kentucky, setting forth in their complaint their respective claims, and obtained a decree, which not only adjudged the aggregate amount Shields should pay them, but apportioned this amount among the plaintiffs, and decreed the specific sums Shields should pay to each of the plaintiffs respectively. Shields lived in Iowa, and some of the plaintiffs in the Kentucky suit,...