Tram Co., 227 U. S. 111) are put forward with special emphasis by appellants as supporting a different conclusion.

Of these, the first had to do with a shipment of wood pulp imported from abroad to Hoboken, New Jersey, where the merchandise was to be transshipped by rail to Garfield in the same state. The haul from Hoboken to Garfield was held to be subject to regulation by the federal Commission. The case differs from the one at hand in at least three particulars: (1) the carriage to Hoboken, as will appear from an examination of the record, was effected by a common carrier; (2) the ultimate consignee was known from the beginning; (3) the rail transportation was "in fact a part of foreign commerce." 280 U. S. at p. 102. Upon a shipment of merchandise to or from a foreign country, the Interstate Commerce Act applies to the carriage in this country, though that part of the carriage is within the limits of a single state. § 1 (1) (c), (2) (a). Cf. Denver & Rio Grande R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 195 Fed. 968, 972; OregonWashington R. & N. Co. v. Strauss & Co., 73 F. (2d) 912; Lees & Sons Co. v. Reading Co., 148 I. C. C. 603; In re Transportation of Sugar, 22 I. C. C. 558.

Texas & New Orleans Ry. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., supra, though differing in details from the case of the Erie Railway, illustrates the same principle, and is to be distinguished on like grounds.

Neither in the cases cited by the appellants nor in any others known to us has transportation by a common carrier been combined with carriage by an owner for the purpose of subjecting the whole to the operation of the statute when the parts would be exempt. Such a fusion, if permitted, would lead to strange results. The situation laid before us would not be changed in its essentials if a coöperative association of farmers doing business in Pennsylvania close to the state line were to use a fleet of trucks belonging to the association or its members to

carry milk or vegetables from Pennsylvania to a railroad. station in Ohio. Even though this were done systematically and not casually or in sporadic instances, the ensuing transportation by rail, if kept within Ohio, would not be transportation between the states within the meaning of the Act of Congress. If the concept of transportation is in need of expansion, it is for the legislative department of the government to determine how great the change shall be.

We have found it unnecessary to consider in the disposition of the case whether the treatment of the coal at Negley would break the continuity of the movement from the mines, even if interstate transportation would otherwise exist. Cf. Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, supra, at p. 526; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. McFadden & Bros., 232 Fed. 1000; aff'd, McFadden & Bros. v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 241 Fed. 562; Board of Trade of Chicago v. Olsen, 262 U. S. 1, 33; Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co., 249 U. S. 134, 151, 152; General Oil Co. v. Crain, 209 U. S. 211.

Second: The appellants have woven into their brief a suggestion, not contained in their statement of points relied upon for reversal, that the ownership by the coal company of a controlling interest in the shares of the Lisbon and the Y. & S. has a bearing on the nature of the transit between Negley and the mines. There is insinuation, if not argument, that in building and operating a private right of way the coal company has nullified restraints imposed upon the railroads by the federal Commission, and for that reason must be treated as if it were a common carrier itself.

No such point was made in the complaint, nor do the assignments of error present it adequately here.

The decree should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

65773°-36- -12

Affirmed.

MCNUTT, GOVERNOR OF INDIANA, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA.

No. 709. Argued April 1, 1936.-Decided May 18, 1936.

1. In a suit in the District Court to enjoin, as unconstitutional, the enforcement of a state statute requiring the plaintiff to obtain a license for his business and otherwise subjecting the business to regulation, the value in controversy, in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff cannot obtain the license or is prevented by the statute from prosecuting the business, is not the value or net worth of the business but the value of the right to be free from the regulation; and this may be measured by the loss, if any, that would follow the enforcement of the rules prescribed. P. 181. 2. Under 5 of the Act of March 3, 1875, Jud. Code, § 37, 28 U. S. C. 80, a plaintiff in the District Court must plead the essential jurisdictional facts and must carry throughout the litigation the burden of showing that he is properly in court; if his allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by competent proof; and even where they are not so challenged, the court may insist that the jurisdictional facts be established by a preponderance of evidence or the case be dismissed. Pp. 182, 189.

3. In a suit for an injunction in the District Court, the allegation of the jurisdictional amount may be traversed by answer. P. 189. 4. In a case in the District Court, the allegation of jurisdictional amount had been traversed, yet no adequate finding on the issue of fact was made by the court and no evidence to support the allegation was introduced. Held that the bill should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. P. 190.

Reversed.

APPEAL from a decree of the District Court of three judges which enjoined the enforcement of a statute regulating the business of purchasing contracts arising out of retail instalment sales.

178

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. Joseph W. Hutchinson, Assistant Attorney General of Indiana, and Mr. Leo M. Gardner, with whom Mr. Philip Lutz, Jr., Attorney General, was on the brief, for appellants.

Messrs. John Thomas Smith and Phillip W. Haberman, with whom Messrs. Duane R. Dills, Stanley B. Ecker, and Paul Y. Davis were on the brief, for appellee.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent, General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Indiana, brought this suit to restrain the enforcement of Chapter 231 of the Acts of 1935 of the General Assembly of Indiana. That Act provides for the regulation of the business of purchasing contracts arising out of retail installment sales, including provisions for licenses, for classifications of contracts, and for fixing maximum "finance charges." The validity of the Act was challenged as depriving respondent of its property without due process of law and denying it the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. An interlocutory injunction was sought and, upon hearing by three judges (28 U. S. C. 380), a final decree was entered, upon findings of facts and conclusions of law, granting a permanent injunction. No opinion was rendered. The case comes here by direct appeal.

The question arises whether the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, so as to give the District Court jurisdiction. Jud. Code, § 24 (1), 28 U. S. C. 41 (1). The complaint alleged that the requisite amount was involved and this

allegation was denied by the answer. On the argument in this Court, leave was given to file an additional brief upon the question of jurisdiction and respondent has submitted its brief accordingly.

Respondent points to the allegations of its bill that the "net worth" of its business exceeds $50,000; that in 1934 it purchased retail installment contracts in Indiana aggregating in excess of $7,000,000; that the value of such purchases for the first six months of 1935 was in excess of $4,000,000; and that during 1934 respondent purchased in Indiana approximately 23,000 installment sales contracts from more than 500 retail dealers. These allegations were sustained by the findings of the District Court. The bill also alleged that respondent maintained offices in Indiana for which it paid yearly an aggregate rental of $13,147; that it employed on the average 85 employees whose aggregate annual salaries amounted to about $150,000. Respondent also refers to its allegations that the Act limits the amount which respondent "may receive as its gross profit for the purchase of an installment contract to a sum not exceeding the maximum 'finance charge' which may be fixed by the Department of Financial Institutions," by prohibiting respondent "from purchasing any retail installment contracts at a less price than the unpaid balance thereon"; that the Act limits the amount which may be given by respondent "to retail sellers out of the gross 'finance charge' received from retail buyers under installment sale contracts" sold to respondent, by requiring the Department "to fix this maximum amount without regard to any differentiation as between contracts sold to licensees by retail sellers with recourse against such sellers, and contracts sold by retail sellers without recourse against them; and that in other respects the statute imposes burdensome requirements which impair the "efficiency of the operations and earnings" of respondent.