instance of the parties, be set aside or rendered inoperative for fraud. The fact of being a party does not estop a person from obtaining in a court of equity relief against fraud. It is generally parties that are the victims of fraud. The Court of Chancery is always open to hear complaints against it, whether committed in pais or in or by means of judicial proceedings. In such cases the court does not act as a court of review, nor does it inquire into any irregularities or errors of proceeding in another court; but it will scrutinize the conduct of the parties, and if it finds that they have been guilty of fraud in obtaining a judgment of decree, it will deprive them of the benefit of it, and of any inequitable advantage which they have derived under it."

In Arrowsmith v. Gleason, 129 U. S. 86, 98, the question was whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction by its decree to set aside a sale of an infant's lands fraudulently made by his guardian under authority derived from a Probate Court, and give such relief as would be consistent with equity. One of the grounds of demurrer to the bill in that case was that the Circuit Court had no authority to set aside and vacate the orders of the state court. This court said: "If by this is meant only that the Circuit Court cannot by its orders act directly upon the Probate Court, or that the Circuit Court cannot compel or require the Probate Court to set aside or vacate its own orders, the position of the defendants could not be disputed. But it does not follow that the right of Harmening, in his lifetime, or of his heirs since his death, to hold these lands, as against the plaintiff, cannot be questioned in a court of general equitable jurisdiction upon the ground of fraud. If the case made by the bill is clearly established by proof, it may be assumed that some state court, of superior jurisdiction and equity powers, and having before it all the parties interested, might afford the plaintiff relief of a substantial character. But whether that be so or not, it is difficult to perceive why the Circuit Court is not bound to give relief according to the recognized rules of equity, as administered in the courts of the

United States, the plaintiff being a citizen of Nevada, the defendants citizens of Ohio, and the value of the matter in dispute, exclusive of interest and costs, being in excess of the amount required for the original jurisdiction of such courts." "While there are general expressions in some cases apparently asserting a contrary doctrine, the later decisions of this court show that the proper Circuit Court of the United States may, without controlling, supervising, or annulling the proceedings of state courts, give such relief, in a case like the one before us, as is consistent with the principles of equity."

After citing the case of Johnson v. Waters, above, the court referred to Reigal v. Wood, 1 Johns Ch. 402, 406, in which Chancellor Kent said: "Relief is to be obtained not only against writings, deeds, and the most solemn assurances, but against judgments and decrees, if obtained by fraud and imposition." It also referred to Bowen v. Evans, 2 H. L. Cas. 257, 281, in which Lord Chancellor Cottenham said: "If a case of fraud be established, equity will set aside all transactions founded upon it, by whatever machinery they may have been effected, and notwithstanding any contrivances by which it may have been attempted to protect them. It is immaterial, therefore, whether such machinery and contrivances consisted of a decree of a court of equity, and a purchase under it, or of a judgment at law, or of other transactions between the actors in the fraud." The opinion of this court concluded: "These principles control the present case, which, although involving rights arising under judicial proceedings in another jurisdiction, is an original, independent suit for equitable relief between the parties, such relief being grounded upon a new state of facts, disclosing not only imposition upon a court of justice in procuring from it authority to sell an infant's lands when there was no necessity therefor, but actual fraud in the exercise, from time to time, of the authority so obtained. As this case is within the equity jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, as defined by the Constitution and laws of the United States, that court may, by its decree, lay hold of the parties and compe

them to do what, according to the principles of equity, they ought to do, thereby securing and establishing the rights of which the plaintiff is alleged to have been deprived by fraud and collusion."

In Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U. S. 589, 595, 596, it appeared that twenty-three judgments for different amounts were fraudulently procured to be rendered in a state court against a citizen of another State. Upon learning of the judgments the latter brought suit in one of the courts of Louisiana for a decree avoiding them as obtained upon false testimony, and thereafter filed a petition and bond for the removal of the case to the Circuit Court of the United States. The right of removal was denied, and the court dissolved the preliminary injunction which had been granted, and authorized Mayer, who had become the owner of the judgments, to proceed in their collection. Upon appeal to a higher state court, the original judgment was affirmed, and that judgment was brought here for review by writ of error. This court sustained the right of removal. After stating that the judgments aggregated more than three thousand dollars and were all held by Mayer and against the plaintiff, we said: "Their validity depends upon the same facts. If she is entitled to relief against one of the judgments, she is entitled to relief against all of them. The cases in which they were rendered were, in effect, tried as one case, so far as she and Mayer were concerned; for the parties stipulated that the result in each one not tried should depend upon the result in the one tried. As all the cases not tried went to judgment in accordance with the result in the one tried; as the property of Mrs. Marshall [the plaintiff] was liable to be taken in execution on all the judgments; as the judgments were held in the same right; and as their validity depended upon the same facts, she was entitled, in order to avoid a multiplicity of actions, and to protect herself against the vexation and cost that would come from numerous executions and levies, to bring one suit for a decree finally determining the matter in dispute in all the cases.

And as, under the rules of equity obtaining in the courts of the United States, such a suit could be brought, the aggregate amount of all the judgments against which she sought protection, upon grounds common to all the actions, is to be deemed, under the act of Congress, the value of the matter here in dispute."

The question of jurisdiction here presented arises out of facts not to be found in any case brought to our attention or of which we have knowledge.

The suit is to remove a cloud on the title to certain lands of the value of $16,000. The plaintiffs, being three of the six heirs at law of the intestate, jointly own an undivided interest of one-half of those lands, but no interest in any particular part of them. If the value of their joint undivided interest, $8,000, or the value of the undivided interest of each (onethird of $8,000), is to be taken as the value of the matter in dispute, then the Circuit Court had jurisdiction. But we are of opinion that within the meaning of the judiciary act of 1887, 1888, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, in this case, depended upon the value in dispute measured by the aggregate amount of the claims of the defendants.

It is contended that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court must fail, because no one defendant has a claim of the required jurisdictional amount. In support of this contention several cases are cited of the class to which Waller v. Northeastern Railroad Co., 147 U. S. 370, 372, 373, belongs. That was a suit by a railroad company against the treasurers and sheriffs of several counties through which its road passed, to enjoin them-separately, of course-from issuing executions against or seizing the property of the company for the purpose of collecting a tax based upon an assessment alleged to be unconstitutional and void. The court said: "It is entirely clear that, had these taxes been paid under protest and the plaintiff had sought to recover them back, it would have been obliged to bring separate actions in each county. As the amount recoverable from each county would be different, no joint

judgment could possibly be rendered. So, had a bill for injunction been filed in a state court, and the practice had permitted, as in some States, a chancery subpoena to be served in any county of the State, these defendants could not have been joined in one bill, but a separate bill would have had to be filed in each county. It is well settled in this

court that when two or more plaintiffs, having several interests, unite for the convenience of litigation in a single suit it can only be sustained in the court of original jurisdiction, or on an 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 plaintiff in one suit, the test of jurisdiction is the joint or several character of the liability to the plaintiff."

The case before us, however, is presented by the bill in an entirely different aspect. The case may be regarded as exceptional in its facts, and may be disposed of without affecting former decisions. There is no dispute as to the amount of any particular claim. So far as the bill is concerned, if any one of the specified claims is good against the estate of Hiram Evans, then all are good; if the lands in question, or any interest in them, can be sold to pay one claim, they must be sold to pay all. The court could not, under the bill, enjoin the prosecution of one claim and leave the others untouched. The matter in dispute is whether the lands in which the plaintiffs have a joint undivided interest of one-half can be sold to pay all the claims, in the aggregate, which the defendants, by combination and conspiracy, procured the Probate Court to allow against the estate of Hiram Evans. The essence of the suit is the alleged fraudulent combination and conspiracy to fasten upon that estate a liability for debts of John Evans, which were held by the defendants and which they, acting in combination, procured, in coöperation with James Evans, to be allowed as claims against the estate of Hiram Evans. By reason of that combination, resulting in the allowance of all those claims in the Probate Court, as expenses of administering the estate of