McDaniel v. Traylor

• Decision Date: 20 June 1903
• Citation: 123 F. 338
• Parties: McDANIEL et al. v. TRAYLOR et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

123 F. 338

McDANIEL et al. v. TRAYLOR et al.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Arkansas.

June 20, 1903

G. B Webster and J. R. Beasley, for complainants.

N.W. Norton and R. W. Nicholls, for defendants.

On Demurrer to Jurisdiction.

TRIEBER District Judge.

This action was instituted by complainants, children and heirs at law of Hiram Evans, who died intestate, seised of considerable personal property and valuable real estate lying and situate in this district. The object of the bill is to set aside, as fraudulent, a number of judgments rendered by the probate court of St. Francis county, Ark., in favor of the defendants, against the estate of their deceased father which judgments are liens on the real estate, which, by the laws of descent of the state of Arkansas, has been inherited by complainants. The value of the real estate affected by the liens of these judgments exceeds $2,000, it is alleged in the bill, and so does the aggregate amount of the judgments of all the defendants, but no one of the judgments in favor of any one of the defendants exceeds that sum. The diversity of citizenship necessary to give a national court jurisdiction is shown by the bill, and the only question to be determined in whether the amount necessary to confer jurisdiction on this court is the aggregate amount of the judgments in favor of all the defendants, or whether each defendant's judgment must exceed the sum of $2,000, exclusive of interest. Although numerous defendants have been joined in the suit, the proceeding is in fact against each defendant separately. There is no allegation in the bill which makes the defendants liable jointly. Each of the judgments in favor of the numerous defendants stands separately, and requires separate proof as to its invalidity. If a decree is rendered in favor of the complainants against all defendants, it must be entered against each one separately, as in cases of separate suits. Such being the case, the value of the matter in dispute with each defendant must be the sum of his own judgment, and these separate and distinct interests cannot be jointed for the purpose of making up the proper amount necessary to give this court jurisdiction. Cases directly in point as to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court are Walter v. Railroad Company 147 U.S. 370, 13 Sup.Ct. 348, 37 L.Ed. 206; Railroad Company v. Walker, 148 U.S. 392, 13 Sup.Ct. 650, 37 L.Ed. 494; Fishback v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 161 U.S. 46 16 Sup.Ct. 506, 40 L.Ed. 630; Citizens' Bank v. Cannon, 164 U.S. 319, 17 Sup.Ct. 89, 41 L.Ed. 451.

In Walter v. Railroad Company, the court says:

'Is the plaintiff entitled to join them all in a single suit in a federal court, and sustain the jurisdiction, by reason of the fact that the total amount involved exceeds two thousand dollars? We think not. It is well settled in this court that when two or more plaintiffs, having separate interests, unite, for the convenience of litigation, in a single suit, it can only be sustained in the court of original jurisdiction, or appeal in this court, as to those whose claims exceed the jurisdictional amount, and that, when two or more defendants are sued by the same plaintiffs in one suit, the test of jurisdiction is the joint or several character of the liability of the plaintiff.' 147 U.S. 373, 13 Sup.Ct. 349, 37 L.Ed. 206.

The cases in which the Supreme Court has dismissed appeals in which the jurisdiction of that court depended on the amount involved are based...