Troy Bank of Troy, Indiana v. Whitehead Company

Decision Date06 November 1911
Docket NumberNo. 566,566
PartiesTROY BANK OF TROY, INDIANA, and John Beidenkopf, Appts. v. G. A. WHITEHEAD & COMPANY (Incorporated)
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. George W. Jolly and B. F. Huffman for appellants.

Mr. Ben D. Ringo for appellee.

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

This was a suit in equity wherein the jurisdiction of the circuit court was invoked on the ground of diverse citizenship, and the sole question now presented for decision is whether the sum or value of the matter in dispute exceeded $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as required by the act of August 13, 1888, chap. 866, § 1, 25 Stat. at L. 433, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 508. The facts are these:

Upon a sale of land situated in the western district of Kentucky, the vendor lawfully reserved a vendor's lien for the unpaid portion of the purchase price, for which he took two promissory notes of $1,200 each, payable in one and two years. Shortly thereafter the notes were assigned to the present appellants, one to each; and by the law of Kentucky the vendor's lien passed to the assignees, as a common security for the payment of both notes, without any priority of right in either assignee. After the maturity of the notes, both remaining wholly unpaid, the assignees jointly brought this suit to enforce the vendor's lien. They and their assignor were citizens of Indiana, and the defendant, who acquired the land with notice of the lien, was a citizen of Kentucky.

By a demurrer to the bill the defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the circuit court, upon the ground that the matter in dispute was not of the requisite jurisdictional value; and the court, being of opinion that such value was not to be measured by the extent to which the plaintiffs collectively were seeking to enforce the lien as a common security, but by the extent to which each was interested in its enforcement, sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction. 184 Fed. 932. The plaintiffs then appealed directly to this court, and the circuit court appropriately certified the question of jurisdiction. Act of March 3, 1891, chap. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. at L. 826, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 549.

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; but when several plaintiffs unite to enforce a single title or right, in which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
192 cases
  • Elliott v. Empire Natural Gas Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 7, 1925
    ...common, undisputed, united interest collectively aggregating the jurisdictional amount, as discussed in Troy Bank v. G. A. Whitehead & Co., Inc., 222 U. S. 39, 32 S. Ct. 9, 56 L. Ed. 81; Eberhard et al. v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 241 F. 353, 154 C. C. A. 233; Louisville & N. R. Co.......
  • Gilmer v. Walt Disney Co., Civil No. 96-5012.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas
    • February 8, 1996
    ...from the same legal source."7 Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir.1995). See also Troy Bank v. G.A. Whitehead and Co., 222 U.S. 39, 32 S.Ct. 9, 56 L.Ed. 81 (1911) (undivided claim is one which neither plaintiff can enforce in the absence of the other); Potrero Hill Com......
  • Amundson & Assoc. Art v. Nat. Council On Comp. Ins.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1997
    ...interests collectively equal the jurisdictional amount.'" Zahn, 414 U.S. at 294 (quoting Troy Bank of Troy, Ind. v. G.A. Whitehead & Co., 222 U.S. 39, 40-41, 32 S.Ct. 9, 9, 56 L.Ed. 81 (1911)). In other words, if the class members have a common and undivided interest in punitive damages and......
  • State v. American Surety Co. of New York
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1914
    ... ... AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Appellant Supreme Court of Idaho ... Codes, making it the ... duty of the bank commissioner to make an examination of state ... 436, 28 S.Ct. 581, 52 L.Ed. 876; Troy Bank v. Whitehead & ... Co., 222 U.S. 39, 32 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Class Action Law in Georgia: Emerging Trends in Litigation, Certification, and Settlement - Jeffrey G. Casurella and John R. Bevis
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 49-1, September 1997
    • Invalid date
    ...414 U.S. 291, 301 (1973); Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 336 (1969). 54. Zahn, 414 U.S. at 294 (citing Troy Bank v. G.A. Whitehead & Co., 222 U.S. 39, 4041 (1911)). 55. 77 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1996); accord Turpeau v. Fidelity Fin. Serv., Inc., 936 F. Supp. 975 (N.D. Ga. 1996), affd mem., ......
  • DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND THE COMMON-LAW SCOPE OF THE CIVIL ACTION.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 No. 2, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...which "it was perfectly immaterial to the appellant, how it was to be shared among them"). See also Troy Bank v. G.A. Whitehead & Co., 222 U.S. 39, 40-4\ (1911) ("[W]hen several plaintiffs unite to enforce a single title or right, in which they have a common and undivided interest, it i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT