held in such case that their interests were several, and could not be joined for the purpose of jurisdiction.

This same principle applies as to joining the defendants. Where the claims against the separate defendants are several, they cannot be joined for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction. For instance, suits against different county officers, combining them as defendants, to enjoin the collection of a tax separately assessed in their different counties, were several, and the claims against these different defendants could not be joined for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction.

46

This principle, however, does not prevent parties from filing petitions for amounts under the jurisdictional amount where a suit involving the proper amount has already been brought, and the court has thereby acquired jurisdiction. If, in administering a fund, the court has acquired jurisdiction at the suit of one who had a sufficient amount to give it, petitions filed by others to share in the result of the suit are merely incidental, and can be considered by the court, though they could not originally have combined for the purpose of giving jurisdiction.*

The fact that the requisite amount is involved must appear from the allegations of fact in the declaration. A mere general allegation that the sum of $3,000 is involved amounts to nothing more than a conclusion of law, and is not sufficient, unless the other parts of the declaration bear it out.48

46 Walter v. Northeastern Ry. Co., 147 U. S. 370, 13 Sup. Ct. 348, 37 L. Ed. 206; FISHBACK v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO., 161 U. S. 96, 16 Sup. Ct. 506, 40 L. Ed. 630; Citizens' Bank v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319, 17 Sup. Ct. 89, 41 L. Ed. 451. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 328; Cent. Dig. §§ 890-896.

47 Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366, 11 Sup. Ct. 117, 34 L. Ed. 706; National Bank of Commerce v. Allen, 90 Fed. 545, 33 C. C. A. 169; Alsop v. Conway, 188 Fed. 568, 110 C. C. A. 366; Robertson v. Conway, 188 Fed. 579, 110 C. C. A. 377. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 328; Cent. Dig. §§ 890-896.

48 FISHBACK v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO., 161 U. S. 96, 16 Sup. Ct. 506, 40 L. Ed. 630. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 329; Cent. Dig. § 897.

It is important to bear in mind that the limitation as to amount applies only to the first paragraph of section 24 of the Judicial Code, the succeeding paragraphs being expressly excepted from its operation. Even as to the first paragraph, it does not apply to suits by the United States or any officer thereof, nor to suits by citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants from different states.

SAME-FEDERAL QUESTIONS

99. If the procedure is a suit as just explained and involves over $3,000, the jurisdiction extends to cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made or which shall be made under their authority. This class is commonly called federal questions, and a federal question is involved not merely when the construction of a federal statute incidentally arises, but when the case necessarily turns upon the construction of the federal laws, as when the plaintiff would be defeated by one construction, or successful by another.

In the class under discussion, it is not sufficient that the suit must be at law or in equity, and must involve $3,000. In addition, one of several other conditions must concur: Either (1) the case must arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made or which shall be made under their authority; or (2) it must be a controversy between citizens of different states; or (3) it must be a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects. These requisites must now be considered in their order.

Cases Arising under the Constitution or Laws of the United States, or Treaties Made or Which shall be made under Their Authority

If the case is of this nature, the district court has jurisdiction independent of any question of citizenship. The

two great branches of jurisdiction of the court in ordinary controversies are, first, cases depending upon the nature of the controversy-that is, involving a federal question, as this branch is usually designated; and, second, cases depending upon the citizenship of the parties.

In another connection (the question of appeals from the state courts to the Supreme Court) it will be found that this term "federal question" is used in a rather more restricted sense than in the sense in which it is used as defining the jurisdiction of the federal district courts. In the latter class, a case involves a federal question when its correct decision depends upon the construction of the federal Constitution or statutes, or when the plaintiff would be defeated by one construction or sustained by another."" Pleadings must Show Federal Question

In order for this ground of jurisdiction to exist, a mere general allegation that the plaintiff's case rests upon a construction of the federal Constitution or statutes is not sufficient. The facts in his pleading must show this. And it must also appear that the plaintiff's own case necessarily depends upon the construction of the federal Constitution. or statutes. If it is not part of the plaintiff's case, he cannot give jurisdiction by anticipating in his pleading the defense which he expects the defendant to make, and stating that such defense turns upon a federal question.50

49 LITTLE YORK GOLD WASHING & WATER CO. v. KEYES, 96 U. S. 199, 24 L. Ed. 656; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257, 25 L. Ed. 648; post, pp. 497, 505. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 284; Cent. Dig. §§ 820-839.

50 FLORIDA C. & P. R. CO. v. BELL, 176 U. S. 321, 20 Sup. Ct. 399, 44 L. Ed. 486; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 178 U. S. 239, 20 Sup. Ct. 867, 44 L. Ed. 1052; Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 183 U. S. 185, 22 Sup. Ct. 47, 46 L. Ed. 144; Defiance Water Co. v. Defiance, 191 U. S. 184, 24 Sup. Ct. 63, 48 L. Ed. 140; Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313, 26 Sup. Ct. 652, 50 L. Ed. 1046; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149, 29 Sup. Ct. 42, 53 L. Ed. 126; Earnhart v. Switzler, 179 Fed. 832, 105 C. C. A. 260. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 299; Cent. Dig. § 841.

If, however, it does appear from the plaintiff's pleading that a federal question is involved, the jurisdiction of the court is not defeated by the fact that other nonfederal questions may also be involved.51

The jurisdiction depends upon the plaintiff's allegations, not upon the construction which the defendant gives them.52

As a general rule, the jurisdiction is dependent upon the plaintiff's own statement; but if the plaintiff puts in a federal question which has not even a color of merit, or if he raises a federal question, and the defendant by his answer admits his construction of it, the court may dismiss the suit of its own motion under another section of the act, which permits it to do so whenever it appears that a case giving the federal courts jurisdiction is not necessarily involved.53 Some concrete instances of suits involving federal questions may make this clear, bearing in mind that the plaintiff's pleading must show the necessary jurisdictional facts. A suit against a corporation organized under an act of Congress necessarily involves a federal question, and can be brought in the federal courts, if the other requisites of jurisdiction concur."

54

51 New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135, 26 L. Ed. 96; St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. v. St. Paul & N. P. R. Co., 68 Fed. 2, 15 C. C. A. 167; St. Paul & N. P. R. Co. v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 18 Sup. Ct. 946, 42 L. Ed. 1212; San Francisco Gas & Electric Co. v. San Francisco (C. C.) 189 Fed. 943. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 282, 284; Cent. Dig. §§ 820-839.

52 Central Ry. Co. of New Jersey v. Mills, 113 U. S. 249, 5 Sup. Ct. 456, 28 L. Ed. 949. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 299; Cent. Dig. § 841.

53 McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168, 19 Sup. Ct. 644, 43 L. Ed. 936; Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Bridge Co., 185 U. S. 282, 22 Sup. Ct. 681, 46 L. Ed. 910. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 282, 284; Cent. Dig. §§ 820-839.

54 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Harris, 158 U. S. 326, 15 Sup. Ct. 843, 39 L. Ed. 1003; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593, 12 Sup. Ct. 905, 36 L. Ed. 829; A. L. Wolff & Co. v. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. (C. C.) 133 Fed. 601. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 293; Cent.

Dig. § 835.

So a suit on the bond of a United States marshal for an illegal seizure of goods under a writ of the United States court involves a federal question.55

56

So, too, a suit on a clerk's bond, brought by a private suitor, which raises the question whether the sureties on the bond were liable for money paid into court on a tender, involves a federal question. So a suit by a materialman against the sureties on a government contractor's bond." A suit to determine the validity of the consolidation of two railway companies, authorized by act of Congress, involves a federal question."

58

Suits to restrain the collection of taxes alleged to violate the constitutional provision as to due process of law are quite frequent in the federal courts. If they turn upon the question whether the state law under which the tax is assessed is a violation of the federal Constitution, they involve a federal question. If it is a mere question whether they involve a conflict of a state law with the state Constitution, they do not involve a federal question.59

The same principle applies to suits under the due process clause.60

55 Bock v. Perkins, 139 U. S. 628, 11 Sup. Ct. 677, 35 L. Ed. 314; Frank v. Leopold & Feron Co. (C. C.) 169 Fed. 922. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 296; Cent. Dig. § 838.

56 Howard v. U. S., 184 U. S. 676, 22 Sup. Ct. 543, 46 L. Ed. 754. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 296; Cent. Dig. § 838.

57 Act Aug. 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278, c. 280 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2523); Mullin v. U. S., 109 Fed. 817, 48 C. C. A. 677. Compare Henningsen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 208 U. S. 404, 28 Sup. Ct. 389, 52 L. Ed. 547; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. U. S., 204 U. S. 349, 27 Sup. Ct. 381, 51 L. Ed. 516. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 296; Cent. Dig. § 838.

58 Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449, 4 Sup. Ct. 437, 28 L. Ed. 482. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 293; Cent. Dig. § 835.

59 Village of Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 19 Sup. Ct. 187, 43 L. Ed. 443; Wheeler v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 178 U. S. 321, 20 Sup. Ct. 949, 44 L. Ed. 1085; McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168, 19 Sup. Ct. 644, 43 L. Ed. 936; West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258, 24 Sup. Ct. 650, 48 L. Ed. 965. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 282, 297; Cent. Dig. §§ 820-824, 839.

Go San Francisco Gas & Electric Co. v. San Francisco (C. C.) 189