Ct. 1075, 136 U. S. 652, 34 L. Ed. 557; Tuthill v. U. S. (D. C. 1889) 38 Fed. 538.

When the United States has a right, under a state statute, to sue in the name of the state on the official bond of a sheriff for allowing the escape of a federal prisoner, such action is within the jurisdiction of the federal district court. State of Tennessee V. Hill (1894) 60 Fed. 1005, 9 C. C. A. 326, 24 L. R. A. 170.

The district court has jurisdiction of an action by the United States to recover money fraudulently obtained by defendant in a payment of a false claim for a pension. Pooler v. U. S. (1904) 127 Fed. 519, 520, 62 C. C. A. 307.

The court has jurisdiction of a creditor's bill brought by the United States, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the requisite sum or value. U. S. v. Stiner (C. C. 1871) Fed. Cas. No. 16,404.

The United States courts have jurisdiction of suits by the government on the official bonds of officers chargeable with public moneys. U. S. v. Belknap (C. C. 1896) 73 Fed. 19.

A suit by the United States for the use of the Creek Nation of Indians to cancel patents or deeds to town lots belonging to said nation in its tribal pacity and sold by the United States for its benefit under Act March 1, 1901, c. 676, § 10, 31 Stat. 864, on the ground that such deeds were obtained by fraud, is one in which "the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners." U. S. v. ReaRead Mill & Elevator Co. (C. C. 1909) 171 Fed. 501.

31. Suits by receivers of national banks. See, also, notes under § 9668, post.

An action by a receiver of a national bank to recover assets is one by an officer of the United States suing under authority of an act of Congress, of which a court of the United States has jurisdiction without regard to the amount involved or the citizenship of the parties. Short v. Hepburn (1896) 75 Fed. 113, 21 C. C. A. 252; Myers v. Hettinger (1899) 94 Fed. 370, 37 C. C. A. 369 (affirming judgment Hettinger v. Meyers [C. C. 1897] 81 Fed. 805); Price v. Abbott (C. C. 1883) 17 Fed. 506; Hendee v. Connecticut & P. R. R. Co. (C. C. 1886) 26 Fed. 677; Armstrong v. Ettlesohn (C. C. 1888) 36 Fed. 209; Armstrong v. Trautman (C. C. 1888) 36 Fed. 275, 276; Stephens v. Bernays (C. C. 1890) 44 Fed. 642, 643; Yardley v. Dickson (C. C. 1891) 47 Fed. 835; Fisher v. Yoder (C. C. 1892) 53 Fed. 565; Linn County Nat. Bank v. Crawford (C. C. 1895) 69 Fed. 532; Thompson v. Pool (C. C. 1895) 70 Fed. 725; Thompson v. German Ins. Co. (C. C. 1896) 76 Fed. 892; Brown v. Smith (C. C. 1898) 88 Fed. 565; Rankin v. Herod (C. C. 1905) 140 Fed. 661; Murray v. Chambers (C. C. 1907) 151 Fed.

142; Platt v. Beach (D. C. 1868) Fed. Cas. No. 11,215; Frelinghuysen v. Baldwin (D. C. 1882) 12 Fed. 395; Stephens v. Bernays (D. C. 1890) 41 Fed. 401; Id. (1893) 119 Mo. 143, 24 S. W. 46 (following [D. C. 1890] 41 Fed. 401); Thompson v. Schaetzel (1891) 2 S. D. 395, 50 N. W. 631.

Plaintiff was appointed receiver of an insolvent national bank in Vermont, and obtained an order from the federal court for the district of Vermont for the sale of certain bonds pledged to the bank as security for a debt due the bank by defendant railroad company in Canada, which brought suit in the Canadian court to recover the bonds, whereupon plaintiff filed a bill in the federal court for the district of Vermont for an injunction against the further prosecution of the suit in Canada. Held, that the court had jurisdiction, and that the injunction should be granted. Hendee v. Connecticut & P. R. R. Co. (C. C. 1886) 26 Fed. 677.

The federal courts have the same jurisdiction of suits by and against the "agents" of national banks appointed under the national banking acts of congress, when the "receivers" of an insolvent bank have been displaced by such "agents," as they have of, suits by and against the "receivers," each being in the same sense officers of the United States, and each representing in precisely the same relation the bank in its corporate capacity, and this without regard to citizenship of the parties or amount involved. McConville v. Gilmour (C. C. 1888) 36 Fed. 277, 1 L. R. A. 498.

The F. National Bank pledged to the U. Bank, as collateral, a draft held by it. The F. Bank failed, and the comptroller appointed a receiver, to whom the U. Bank indorsed the draft for collection. Held, that the receiver could show that the draft was really an asset of the F. Bank, on which he could sue in a federal court, by virtue of his appointment, irrespective of the citizenship of parties. Thompson v. Pool (C. C. 1895) 70 Fed. 725.

32. Suits by United States marshals, district attorneys, and Indian agents.The district attorney of the United States filed a bill of information in the district court of the United States to foreclose a mortgage in favor of the United States. Held, that the United States might be considered the real complainant, and that the court had jurisdiction. Benton v. Woolsey (1838) 12 Pet. 27, 9 L. Ed. 987.

An undertaking given to the United States marshal for the return of goods taken from his possession in replevin, by process from a state court, is a forthcoming bond, and the marshal may maintain an action in his own name in the federal court; and this irrespective of the question of the citizenship of himself and the obligors in the bond;

and so may any one beneficially interested in the bond. Patterson v. Mater (C. C. 1885) 26 Fed. 31.

A receiver of a national bank, appointed by the comptroller of the currency, is an officer of the United States, and entitled to sue in the federal courts, by virtue of R. S. § 629. Thompson v. Pool (C. C. 1895) 70 Fed.

725.

The district court has jurisdiction of an action by a United States marshal to protect money in his hands as such and when wrongfully interfered with in its possession or when his right to it as marshal is invaded. Henry v. Sowles (D. C. 1886) 28 Fed. 481.

There is no statute authorizing an Indian agent to sue for the benefit or protection of the Indians under his charge, so as to bring such a suit within the provision of R. S. § 563, substantially re-enacted in this subdivision. On the contrary, it is the right and duty of the government itself to maintain such suits as are necessary to protect the rights of tribal Indians. In re Celestine (D. C. 1902) 114 Fed. 551.

33. Suits by postmaster general.-A suit by the Postmaster General on a post master's bond is within the judicial power Postof the federal courts. master General v. Early (1827) 12 Wheat. 136, 149, 6 L. Ed. 577. The

conferred original jurisdiction on the circuit courts over such controversies when the parties are citizens of the same state. Stevenson v. Fain (1904) 25 Sup. Ct. 6, 8, 195 U. S. 165, 49 L. Ed. 142.

35. Effect of agreement between states.-An agreement between the state of Virginia and the state of Kentucky that all litigation arising over land grants made by those states before their separation shall be determined by the laws in existence at that time does not oust the federal court of its jurisdiction to try such cases. Wilson v. Mason (1801) 5 U. S. (1 Cranch) 45, 2 L. Ed. 29.

(A) Construction and scope of provision

36. Purpose and effect of provision.A judgment of a circuit court, rendered upon personal service on the defendant of a summons not delivered to the marshal until after Act March 3, 1887, limiting the jurisdiction of the court to matters exceeding $2,000, went into force, although the complaint was filed before the act, will not be declared void on bill in equity on the ground that the matter in dispute was less than $2,000. If erroneous, the Donham remedy is by writ of error. v. Springfield Hardware Co. (1894) 62 Fed. 110, 10 C. C. A. 294. Defendant in a suit involving less than $2,000 was served with summons February 2, 1887, by an unauthorized He appeared generally on February 23, 1887, and subsequently answered. Held, that the appearance cured the defect in service, and gave the court jurisdiction, and therefore the case was not affected by Act March 3, 1887, increasing the jurisdictional amount to $2,000. Platt v. Manning (C. C. 1888) 34 Fed. 817.

479.

III. LAND

V.

GRANTS FROM DIFFERENT STATES

34. Grounds of jurisdiction. The federal courts have jurisdiction over a case between citizens of Kentucky, claiming lands under different grants, one issued by Kentucky and the other by Virginia, on warrants issued by Virginia and locations founded before the separation of Kentucky from Virginia. Massie v. Watts (1810) 10 U. S. (6 Cranch) 148, 3 L. Ed. 181; Colson v. Lewis (1817) 15 U. S. (2 Wheat.) 377, 4 L. Ed. 266.

The

the

federal courts have jurisdiction of controversies between citizens of same state claiming lands under grants from different states. Bank of the U. S. v. Deveaux (1809) 29 U. S. (5 Cranch) 61, 85, 3 L. Ed. 38.

The

jurisdiction of a circuit court

over a controversy between citizens of different states, claiming under grants from different states, depended entirely upon diversity of citizenship, within the rule that makes decrees of a circuit court of appeals final in cases in which diversity of citizenship is the

sole

since

ground of original jurisdiction,

the various judiciary acts only

The provision as to amount merely prevents the dockets of the federal courts from being overcrowded with small cases. Davis v. Mills (C. C. 1900) 99 Fed. 39, 40.

So much of Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, § 1, 25 Stat. 433, as related to the amount in controversy was jurisdictional and could not be waived. Pepper v. Rogers (C. C. 1904) 128 Fed. 987.

Though the jurisdiction conferred does not depend on the amount involved, congress has by Judiciary Acts 1879, c. 20, incorporated into R. S. § 629-1, this section, excluded from the jurisdiction of the federal circuit courts all cases of a civil nature involving sums or values not in excess of $500, and by Act 1887, c. 373, as amended by Act 1888, c. 866, limited jurisdiction where the amount involved exceeded the sum or value of $2,000 and by Judicial Code, § 24, limited the matter in controversy to a sum or value in excess of $3,000, and these restrictions on the jurisdiction are valid.

Symonds v. St. Louis & S. E. Ry. Co. (C. C. 1911) 192 Fed. 353.

The restriction on the jurisdiction of the federal court is valid, though Const. art. 3, § 2, does not make jurisdiction depend on the amount involved in the controversy. Id.

This provision construed, and held not to enlarge the jurisdiction of District Courts beyond that previously possessed by the Circuit Courts in respect to the amount or value in dispute. Salander v. City of Tacoma (D. C. 1913) 208 Fed. 427.

(B) Cases subject to pecuniary limitation

37. Actions between citizens of the same state claiming land under the grants of different states.-Under Judiciary Act of 1887, § 1, as corrected by Act of 1888, a court might not take cognizance of a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming land under grants of different states unless the statutory amount was involved. U. S. v. Sayward (1895) 16 Sup. Ct. 371, 372, 160 U. S. 493, 40 L. Ed. 508.

38. Actions between citizens of different states or aliens.The matter in dispute must exceed the jurisdictional amount, although jurisdiction is based on diverse citizenship. Richardson v. Green (1894) 61 Fed. 423, 9 C. C. A. 565; Eaton v. Hoge (1905) 141 Fed. 64, 72 C. C. A. 74, 5 Ann. Cas. 487; Turner v. Jackson Lumber Co. (1908) 159 Fed. 923, 87 C. C. A. 103; Moore v. Town of Edgefield (C. C. 1887) 32 Fed. 498; Werner v. Murphy (C. C. 1894) 60 Fed. 769; Pliable Shoe Co. v. Bryant (C. C. 1897) 81 Fed. 521; Felch v. Travis (C. C. 1899) 92 Fed. 210; Brown v. Ellis (C. C. 1899) 95 Fed. 1; Lefkowitz v. Foster Hose Supporter Co. (C. C. 1908) 161 Fed. 367; Risley v. City of Utica (C. C. 1909) 168 Fed. 737; Peters v. Queen Ins. Co. of America (C. C. 1910) 182 Fed. 113; Reich v. Tennessee Copper Co. (D. C. 1913) 209 Fed. 880.

A bill in equity against a town in one state by a citizen of another for relief against the accidental omission of seals from bonds of defendant town, payable to bearer and held by plaintiff part on his own account, and part by assignments from residents of other states, for the purpose of bringing the action, should be dismissed as far as the suit concerns bonds held by a citizen of another state to a less amount than the jurisdictional amount. Bernards Tp. v. Stebbins (1883) 3 Sup. Ct. 252, 262, 109 U. S. 341, 27 L. Ed. 956. Jurisdiction on ground of diverse citizenship will not be taken of a suit by a nonresident taxpayer to enjoin the issue of county bonds unless complainant's liability is shown to exceed the statutory amount. Adams v. Douglas County (C. C. 1868) Fed. Cas. No. 52. A suit for $10,000 brought by citi

zens and residents of France against an Illinois corporation was within the jurisdiction of the federal Circuit Court under Judiciary Act March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 1, 24 Stat. 552, as amended by Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, § 1, 25 Stat. 433, conferring on federal courts jurisdiction of a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects wherein the amount in controversy exceeds $2,000. Fribourg v. Pullman Co. (C. C. 1910) 176 Fed. 981.

39. Actions under or for violation of interstate commerce acts.-An action for damages for violation of the interstate commerce act and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto held not within the jurisdiction of the federal court, unless the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory limitation. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Lyne (1912) 193 Fed. 984, 113 C. C. A. 604.

A federal court had jurisdiction to compel an interstate carrier to specifically perform a contract to issue free passes to complainants during their natural lives, which the carrier had refused to do because of the provisions of Act June 29, 1906, post, § 8563 (5), prohibiting a carrier from issuing free interstate transportation; complainants having alleged that the value to each of them of the right sought to be enforced exceeded the jurisdictional amount, exclusive of interest and costs. Mottley v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (C. C. 1907) 150 Fed. 406, judgment reversed Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mottley (1908) 29 Sup. Ct. 42, 211 U. S. 149, 53 L. Ed. 126.

An action against a carrier for loss or damage on a shipment by connecting carriers, under section 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act of Feb. 4, 1887, as amended by the Hepburn Act (Act June 29, 1906, § 7) § 8592, post, is subject to the general limitation as to amount. Smeltzer v. St. Louis & T. F. R. Co. (C. C. 1909) 168 Fed. 420.

That an initial carrier's liability for loss of goods shipped in interstate commerce was created by Carmack Amend. § 7, § 8592, post, was insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction as between plaintiff and such initial carrier, where the value of the goods did not exceed $3,000. Adams v. Chicago Great Western R. Co. (D. C. 1914) 210 Fed. 362.

40. Cases arising under constitution or federal laws.-A receiver may bring an action in the federal court where the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory amount. White v. Ewing (1895) 66 Fed. 2, 13 C. C. A. 276, certified questions answered (1895) 15 Sup. Ct. 1018, 159 U. S. 36, 40 L. Ed. 67. The matter in dispute must exceed the jurisdictional amount, although the controversy arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Eaton v. Hoge (1905) 141 Fed. 64, 72 C. C. A. 74, 5 Ann. Cas. 487; Turner

v. Jackson Lumber Co. (1908) 159 Fed. 923, 87 C. C. A. 103; Shewalter v. City of Lexington (C. C. 1906) 143 Fed. 161; Lefkowitz v. Foster Hose Supporter Co. (C. C. 1908) 161 Fed. 367; Risley v. City of Utica (C. C. 1909) 168 Fed. 737.

A suit to restrain the collection of taxes not exceeding the statutory limit, though arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, is not within the jurisdiction of a court of the United States, and future taxes which may be affected by the decision cannot be included in determining the value of the matter in dispute. Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co. (1900) 20 Sup. Ct. 272, 176 U. S. 68, 44 L. Ed. 374, affirming decree (1897) 80 Fed. 1, 25 C. C. A. 301.

An action against election officers to recover damages for the wrongful rejection of plaintiff's vote for a member of Congress is one arising under the Constitution of the United States, and is within the jurisdiction of a federal court, where the damages are laid at more than the requisite amount. Brickhouse v. Brooks (C. C. 1908) 165 Fed. 534.

An action to recover money paid under an alleged unconstitutional city ordinance imposing a license tax on users of trading stamps, not involving $3,000, held not within the jurisdiction of a District Court. Salander v. City of Tacoma (D. C. 1913) 208 Fed. 427.

41. Cases involving national banks.— Under R. S. § 5136, post, § 9661, allowing national banks to sue and to be sued in any court of law and equity as fully as natural persons, such a bank attempting to sue in a federal court for a district other than the one in which the bank is established is subject to the jurisdictional limits as to the amount in controversy in actions by natural persons. St. Louis Nat. Bank v. Brinkham (C. C. 1880) 1 Fed. 45.

42. Interveners.-Where a judgment creditor whose judgment exceeds the jurisdictional amount has filed a creditors' bill in a federal court in behalf of himself and all other creditors who desire to come in, to reach and subject a special fund alleged to have been acquired by a third party in fraud of the rights of the creditors of the judgment defendant, and the court has acquired jurisdiction over such fund, it has jurisdiction to entertain a petition of intervention by another creditor desiring to become a party to the bill, and claiming an interest in the fund, though the amount of his judgment is less than the statutory amount. National Bank of Commerce v. Allen (1898) 90 Fed. 545, 33 C. C. A. 169.

the jurisdictional amount. Robinson v. West Virginia Loan Co. (C. C. 1898) 90 Fed. 770.

To confer jurisdiction on a federal court of a suit brought by a receiver of another court, though by reason of the fact that he is the receiver of a federal court the suit be regarded as one arising under the laws of the United States, it is essential that it should involve the jurisdictional amount. Sullivan v. Swain (C. C. 1899) 96 Fed. 259.

44. Suits on marshals' bonds.-The court has not jurisdiction in suits on United States marshals' bonds where the amount in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional amount. Pierson v. Philips (C. C. 1888) 36 Fed. 837.

45. Writs of right.-Under Judiciary Act 1789, §§ 11, 20, the circuit courts have jurisdiction of a writ of right where the value of the property demanded exceeds the sum of $500. Green v. Liter (1814) 12 U. S. (8 Cranch) 229, 3 L. Ed. 545.

(C) Cases not subject to pecuniary limitation

46. United States as plaintiff or petitioner. The federal courts have jurisdiction of suits by the United States without regard to the amount in controversy. U. S. v. Flournoy Live Stock & Real Estate Co. (C. C. 1896) 71 Fed. 576.

Under the judiciary acts of 1887-88, the federal courts had jurisdiction of a civil action at law in which the United States is plaintiff, without regard to the amount in dispute. U. S. v. Sayward (1895) 16 Sup. Ct. 371, 160 U. S. 493, 40 L. Ed. 508; U. S. v. Shaw (C. C. 1889) 39 Fed. 433, 3 L. R. A. 232; U. S. v. Kentucky River Mills (C. C. 1891) 45 Fed. 273; U. S. v. Reid (C. C. 1898) 90 Fed. 522. But see Maxwell v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (C. C. 1888) 34 Fed. 286; U. S. v. Huffmaster (C. C. 1888) 35 Fed. 81; Id. 83. 47. Suits by assignees.-See 366 et seq., post, this subdivision.

48. Suits by assignees in bankruptcy. -Suits may be brought in the circuit courts of the United States, by assignees in bankruptcy, without reference to the amount or value in controversy. Payson v. Coffin (C. C. 1877) Fed. Cas. No. 10,858.

49. Suits by national banks.-A suit in equity in a court of the United States to restrain the defendant, as receiver of an insolvent national bank, from prosecuting an action at law in the same court against the complainant, is ancillary to the action at law, and the court has jurisdiction without regard to the amount involved. Aldrich v. Campbell (1899) 97 Fed. 663, 38 C. C. A. 347.

Under R. S. §§ 110, 111, substantially re-enacted in this section, giving the federal courts jurisdiction of all suits

by or against any national bank established in the district for which the court is held, such jurisdiction is not dependent upon the amount in controversy. St. Louis Nat. Bank v. Brinkham (C. C. 1880) 1 Fed. 45.

A receiver of a national bank may sue in the federal court to recover an indebtedness owing to the bank, without regard to the amount involved. Yardley v. Dickson (C. C. 1891) 47 Fed. 835.

To confer on the court of the United States of a district other than that in which a national bank is located jurisdiction of a suit in equity brought by the receiver of such bank, it is necessary that such suit should involve the jurisdictional amount exclusive of interest and cost. Brown v. Ellis (C. C. 1899) 95 Fed. 1.

An action by a receiver of a national bank to collect a debt due the bank is one brought under authority of R. S. $5234, post, § 9821, and is within the jurisdiction of a federal court, regardless of the amount in controversy. Schofield v. Palmer (C. C. 1904) 134 Fed. 753. And see Rankin v. Herod (C. C. 1904) 130 Fed. 390.

50. Suits to recover penalties.-A suit under Act Feb. 26, 1885, section 4240, post, to recover penalties for importing foreigners under contract to perform labor might be maintained regardless of the amount in dispute. U. S. v. Whitcomb Metallic Bedstead Co. (D. C. 1891) 45 Fed. 89.

51. Suits to redress deprivation of civil rights.-District Court held to have jurisdiction of alien's suit to enjoin enforcement of state law requiring employment of citizens in preference to aliens, without regard to amount in controversy. Raich v. Truax (D. C. 1915) 219 Fed. 273.

(D) Matter in dispute and amount or value claimed or involved

52. "Matter in dispute" or "controversy" defined.-The term "matter in dispute" means the subject of litigation, the matter on which the action is brought and issue joined, and in relation to which, if the issue is one of fact, testimony is taken. Turner v. Southern Home Building & Loan Ass'n (1900) 101 Fed. 308, 41 C. C. A. 379; Cowell V. City Water Supply Co. (1903) 121 Fed. 53, 57 C. C. A. 393; Battle v. Atkinson (C. C. 1902) 115 Fed. 384, 387, affirmed (1903) 24 Sup. Ct. 845, 191 U. S. 559, 48 L. Ed. 302.

The matter in dispute is the claim presented on the record and the claim made by plaintiff until some further judicial proceeding has taken place showing on the record that the sum demanded is not the matter in dispute. Kanouse v. Martin (1853) 15 How. 198, 208, 14 L. Ed. 662.

Where, in an action on a money demand where the general issue is pleaded, the matter in dispute is the debt

claimed; and its amount, as stated in the body of the declaration, and not merely the damages alleged or the prayer for judgment, must be considered. Turner v. Southern Home Building & Loan Ass'n (1900) 101 Fed. 308, 313, 41 C. C. A. 379.

The value of the matter in dispute, on which the jurisdiction of the federal Circuit Court is based, is the value of that which complainant seeks to recover, or the value of that which defendant will lose if complainant obtains the recovery he seeks. Cowell v. City Water Supply Co. (1903) 121 Fed. 53, 57 C. C. A. 393, reversing decree (C. C. 1899) 96 Fed. 769.

The limitation as to amount in controversy has reference to the sum in dispute; and the right of creditors is a mere incident over which the circuit court will necessarily exercise jurisdiction. New York Silk Mfg. Co. v. Second Nat. Bank (C. C. 1882) 10 Fed. 204.

"Matter in controversy" is not the result of litigation, but is that which will be affected by the result, and the value of the matter in controversy is the value which does or does not confer jurisdiction. Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co. (C. C. 1890) 43 Fed. 545, 547.

The statute contemplates that in some instances "the sum" will be the matter in dispute, and in others "the value"; and in the one case the amount in controversy controls, while in the other the value of the property involved. Colston v. Southern Home Building & Loan Ass'n (C. C. 1899) 99 Fed. 305, 306.

53. Amount claimed or value in general. Where jurisdiction depends on the amount in controversy, the federal court cannot acquire jurisdiction unless the matter in dispute exceeds the sum specified in the statute, exclusive of interest and costs. Ladd v. Tudor (C. C. 1847) Fed. Cas. No. 7,975; Maine v. Gilman (C. C. 1882) 11 Fed. 214; Carrick v. Landman (C. C. 1884) 20 Fed. 209; Miller v. Wattier (C. C. 1885) 24 Fed. 49, 53; Western Union Tel. Co. v. White (C. C. 1900) 102 Fed. 705; Swofford v. Cornucopia Mines of Oregon (C. C. 1905) 140 Fed. 957; Kaufman v. I. Rheinstrom Sons Co. (C. C. 1911) 188 Fed. 544; Springer v. Bricker (1905) 76 N. E. 114, 165 Ind. 532; Bacon v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa, 1912) 137 N. W. 1011; Adams Exp. Co. v. Milton (1875) 74 Ky. (11 Bush.) 49; Postal Telegraph Co. v. Cofer (1893) 14 Ky. Law Rep. (abstract) 574; Louisville Southern Ry. Co. v. Tucker's Adm'r (1899) 49 S. W. 314, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1303, 105 Ky. 492; Thompson v. Kendrick's Lessee (1818) 6 Tenn. (5 Hayw.) 113; Hunt v. Hardin (1896) 36 S. W. 1028, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 285; Building & Loan Ass'n of Dakota v. Price (1898) 46 S. W. 92, 18 Tex. Civ.