Reese v. Zinn

• Citation: 103 F. 97
• Court: Circuit Court of Virginia
• Decision Date: 07 July 1900
• Parties: REESE et al. v. ZINN et al.

103 F. 97

REESE et al. v. ZINN et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. West Virginia.

July 7, 1900

D. H Leonard, Charles T. Caldwell, and F. A. Baldwin, for plaintiffs.

Roberts & Carter, for defendants.

JACKSON District Judge.

This case is submitted, first, upon the defendant's plea to the jurisdiction of this court, and assigns two reasons why the court should not entertain the jurisdiction: First, that A. L. Hill and A. J. Hill, who are made defendants to this bill, are improperly joined, and should be made plaintiffs as no relief is asked against them in said bill, they being citizens and residents of the same state as the defendants second, that the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

As to the first ground, it is apparent, from both the bill and answer in this case, that A. L. Hill and A. J. Hill are really not necessary parties to this action, and are merely formal parties. There is no relief sought against them. It is well settled that formal parties can be omitted or transposed in the pleadings, or they may be joined plaintiffs or defendants, without ousting the jurisdiction of the court. Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421, 451, 5 L.Ed. 651; Removal Cases, 100 U.S. 457, 25 L.Ed. 593; Railroad Co v. Ketchum, 101 U.S. 289, 25 L.Ed. 932; Walden v. Skinner, 101 U.S. 577, 25 L.Ed. 963; Harter v. Kernochan, 103 U.S. 562, 26 L.Ed. 411. There are numerous decisions, subsequent to the cases cited, which sustain the same principle. For this reason, the court overrules the plea in abatement in this case.

As to the second ground, that the amount in controversy is insufficient to give this court jurisdiction, the bill upon its face alleges the valuation of the property to be $10,000, and the lease entered into between the Hills and the South Penn Oil Company, on the 11th day of May, 1895, shows the rental value of the property, without any oil developments, to be $2,400 a year; in addition to which the evidence tends to show that by reason of its proximity to other oil properties, and it being in the oil filed, the value of the property is largely in excess of the amount required to give this court jurisdiction.

The court, without intending to file an elaborate opinion in this case, will content itself upon this occasion merely to state its conclusions upon the merits of the controversy. The court is therefore of opinion that the plaintiffs...