the exchange of the right to control the quotations, and not by the rate paid by the defendant under his contract with the telegraph company furnishing him with such quotations. Hunt v. New York Cotton Exch. (1907) 27 S. Ct. 529, 205 U. S. 322, 51 L. Ed. 821, affirming decree New York Cotton Exch. v. Hunt (C. C. 1906) 144 Fed. 511.

Its cash price at a forced sale is not the proper criterion for ascertaining the value of property in controversy, on the question of the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but it should be estimated at what it could be sold for in the ordinary course of business. Berthold v. Hoskins (C. C. 1889) 38 Fed. 772.

103, 104. Amount claimed as test.The amount or value in controversy stated in plaintiff's complaint is the sole test of federal jurisdiction, so far as concerns courts of the first instance. South Dakota Cent. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (1905) 141 Fed. 578, 73 C. C. A. 176; O. J. Lewis Mercantile Co. v. Klepner (1910) 176 Fed. 343, 100 C. C. A. 285 (writ of certiorari denied [1910] 30 Sup. Ct. 575, 216 U. S. 620, 54 L. Ed. 641); Muns v. De Nemours (C. C. 1810) Fed. Cas. No. 9,931; West v. Woods (C. C. 1883) 18 Fed. 665; Hat-Sweat Mfg. Co. v. Porter (C. C. 1891) 46 Fed. 757; Yarde v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (C. C. 1893) 57 Fed. 913; Insurance Co. of North America v. Svendsen (C. C. 1896) 74 Fed. 346; Green v. Valley (C. C. 1900) 101 Fed. 882; Simmons v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n (C. C. 1902) 114 Fed. 785; Eisele v. Oddie (C. C. 1904) 128 Fed. 941; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Juday (1898) 49 N. E. 843, 19 Ind. App. 436; Bacon v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa, 1912) 137 N. W. 1011; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stone & Bronnenberg (1905) 79 Pac. 655, 70 Kan. 708; Disbrow v. Driggs (N. Y. 1858) 8 Abb. Prac. 305, note, 16 How. Prac. 346; Smith v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (1892) 3 N. D. 17, 53 N. W. 173.

Hay

Although, where the law gives no rule, the amount of damages laid in the declaration is not conclusive, yet, if there might be a recovery for the necessary amount, jurisdiction cannot be defeated, unless the court find, as a matter of fact, that the amount of damages stated in the declaration was colorable. ward v. Nordberg Mfg. Co. (1898) 85 Fed. 4, 29 C. C. A. 438; American Wringer Co. v. City of Ionia (C. C. 1896) 76 Fed. 6; Greene County Bank v. J. H. Teasdale Commission Co. (C. C. 1902) 112 Fed. 801; Maurel v. Smith (D. C. 1915) 220 Fed. 195; American Sheet & Tin Plate Co. v. Winzeler (D. C. 1915) 227 Fed. 321.

The ad damnum controls, although the actual damages are alleged to be greater. Barber v. Boston & M. R. Co. (C. C. 1906) 145 Fed. 52; Lesh v. Bailey (Ind. App. 1911) 95 N. E. 341;

Stark v. Port Blakely Mill Co. (Wash. 1906) 87 Pac. 339.

A suit cannot properly be dismissed by a federal court as not substantially involving an amount sufficient to give it jurisdiction, unless the facts, when made to appear on the record, create a legal certainty of that conclusion. Wetmore v. Rymer (1898) 18 Sup. Ct. 293, 169 U. S. 115, 42 L. Ed. 682.

A mere ad damnum clause will not confer jurisdiction on a federal court where the plaintiff asserts a claim which he cannot be legally permitted to sustain by evidence to the extent of the jurisdictional amount. North American Transportation & Trading Co. v. Morrison (1900) 20 Sup. Ct. 869, 871, 178 U. S. 262, 44 L. Ed. 1061.

The amount of damages which plaintiff shall recover in an action for rejecting his vote for a member of congress is peculiarly appropriate for the determination of a jury, and therefore, when the damages are laid at more than the necessary sum, no opinion of the court upon that subject can justify it in holding that the amount in controversy is less than that sum, so as to be insufficient to support the jurisdiction of the court of the United States. Wiley v. Sinkler (1900) 21 Sup. Ct. 17, 179 U. S. 58, 45 L. Ed. 84.

Jurisdiction cannot be ousted after it has once attached, although the amount be reduced below the jurisdictional limit by dismissal of the original bill. Kirby v. American Soda Fountain Co. (1904) 24 Sup. Ct. 619, 620, 194 U. S. 141, 48 L. Ed. 911.

In determining whether the matter in dispute exceeds the jurisdictional amount, the principle to be applied is that, where the law gives no rule, the plaintiff's demand, unless colorable, must furnish one, but, where the law does give the rule, the legal cause of action, and not the plaintiff's demand, must be regarded. Hayward v. Nordberg Mfg. Co. (1898) 85 Fed. 4, 29 C. C. A. 438.

To ascertain the amount in dispute the supreme court should recur to the foundation of the original controversy or the matter in dispute when the action was instituted. Levinski v. Middlesex Banking Co. (1899) 92 Fed. 449, 457, 34 C. C. A. 452.

Ann. Code Miss. § 4287, defines what shall amount to railroad extortion, and section 4288 declares that the party injured may recover of the person or corporation guilty of extortion twice the amount of damages sustained by the overcharge or discrimination, as the case may be. Held that, where a declaration against a railroad company for extortion minutely alleged the overcharges claimed, which amount to a stated sum, and the amount of the recovery on that account was alleged to be a certain sum not equalling the jurisdictional amount, the amount in controversy was not sufficient, though the

declaration also alleged that, by the railroad company's failure to pay the damages alleged, plaintiff had been damaged in a sum in excess of the requisite amount. Barataria Canning Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (1906) 143 Fed. 113, 74 C. C. A. 307.

Whether a suit in a federal court involves the necessary jurisdictional amount is not a local question controlled by the statutes of the state or the rulings of its Supreme Court. Heffner v. Gwynne-Treadwell Cotton Co. (1908) 160 Fed. 635, 87 C. C. A. 606. The court has jurisdiction in covenant where the damages laid exceed the jurisdictional amount, though the penalty named in the contract is less than that sum. Martin v. Taylor (C. C. 1803) Fed. Cas. No. 9,166.

The damages laid in the writ and in the plaintiff's affidavit are equally conclusive, as to the amount in controversy, for the purposes of jurisdiction. Muns v. De Nemours (C. C. 1810) Fed. Cas. No. 9,931.

The court has jurisdiction in debt on a bond for the penalty of the requisite amount, though it appears that less than the jurisdictional amount is due. Postmaster General v. Cross (C. C. 1822) Fed. Cas. No. 11,306.

The limit of jurisdiction as to the amount involved is to be determined by the amount laid in the declaration, and, when it consists of the common counts, by the amount in the bill of particulars. Healy v. Prevost (C. C. 1879) Fed. Cas. No. 6,297.

The question of jurisdiction is governed by the value of the actual matter in dispute as shown by the whole record, and not by the damages claimed or the prayer for judgment alone. Edwards v. Bates County (C. C. 1893) 55 Fed. 436, 439 (reversed on another point [1896] 16 Sup. Ct. 967, 163 U. S. 269, 41 L. Ed. 155); Cabot v. McMaster (C. C. 1894) 61 Fed. 129, 131.

Where plaintiff, in an action on a penal bond, claims less than the jurisdictional amount, the court is without jurisdiction, though the bond exceeds that amount. Cabot v. McMaster (C. C. 1894) 61 Fed. 129, distinguishing Postmaster General v. Cross (C. C. 1822) Fed. Cas. No. 11,306.

It seems that since Act March 3, 1875, the court is not concluded on the question of jurisdiction by the amount laid in the complaint. Holden v. Utah & M. Machinery Co. (C. C. 1897) 82 Fed. 209, writ of error dismissed (1899) 97 Fed. 983, 38 C. C. A. 692.

In an action of ejectment, where no special acts of damage are averred in the declaration, the damages recoverable are nominal only, and the amount of damages laid in the ad damnum clause cannot avail to give a federal court jurisdiction where the value of the land is insufficient. Way v. Clay (C. C. 1904) 140 Fed. 352.

It is sufficient to sustain the juris

diction of a circuit court, where the requisite jurisdictional facts are shown by the complaint, that it does not at any time thereafter satisfactorily appear to the court that the suit does not really and substantially involve the jurisdictional amount. Maffet v. Quine (C. C. 1899) 95 Fed. 199, denying rehearing (C. C. 1899) 93 Fed. 347.

The amount involved is only $1,900, and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the federal circuit court, where the complaint, in form, states two causes of action, the prayer as to each of which is for a judgment for $1,900, each being for nondelivery of a telegram, the only difference therein being that one is addressed to "Mrs. P.," and the other to "Mr. P.," and it appearing that the complaint, in form, stated two causes of action, because plaintiffs' counsel was uncertain, from the chirography, as to which of the two persons the telegram was addressed. Pooser v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (C. C. 1905) 137 Fed. 1001.

The amount stated in the body of the complaint, and not that in the prayer for judgment, will determine the amount in dispute in action on money demand. Culver v. Crawford County (D. C. 1877) Fed. Cas. No. 3,468.

Where plaintiff filed a complaint containing two causes of action, one alleging damages in the sum of $4,234.50, and the other $1,425, and praying for a recovery of $2,999, without waiving any specific portion of either cause of action, the prayer for judgment was insufficient, and precluded a removal on the ground that the matter involved less than $3,000. Collins v. Twin Falls North Side Land & Water Co. (D. C. 1913) 204 Fed. 134.

The amount in controversy, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the federal court on removal of an attachment suit, in which defendant had not been served nor appeared generally, held limited to the amount claimed in the affidavit for attachment, and not the amount stated in the ad damnum of the complaint. Starke v. Hoerning (D. C. 1913) 206 Fed. 1006.

Though plaintiff in his pleadings need not limit himself to any one theory of the damages, if he does limit himself, the amount of his damages are to be determined by this measure. Armstrong v. Walters (D. C. 1915) 219 Fed. 320, new trial denied (D. C. 1915) 223 Fed. 451.

A complaint in an action for negligent death contained several counts, each demanding damages in a sum less than the jurisdictional amount. Only damages resulting from the death were sought to be recovered. Held, that the cause was not within the jurisdiction of a federal court. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Hill (1906) 40 South. 612, 146 Ala. 240.

In an action for unliquidated damages, the prayer in the petition for a judg

ment in a sum less than the damages alleged therein establishes the amount in controversy. Bacon v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa, 1912) 137 N. W. 1011.

Where the law prescribes no limitation on the extent of the recovery, the determination of the amount rests with the court and jury. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stone & Bronnenberg (1905) 79 Pac. 655, 70 Kan. 708.

105. Actual amount in controversy less than amount claimed.Where, in an action against election officers to recover damages for the rejection of a vote for members of Congress, the damages were laid at more than the requisite amount, the United States courts had jurisdiction; as the courts could not say that the amount in controversy was less than such amount, although it was claimed that a verdict for that amount would be excessive. Wiley v. Sinkler (1900) 21 Sup. Ct. 17, 20, 179 U. S. 58, 45 L. Ed. 84.

V.

A federal court had no jurisdiction of a suit based on diversity of citizenship, where the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, was exactly equivalent to, but did not exceed, the jurisdictional amount, even though the complaint alleged that it exceeded that amount, which allegation was admitted by the answer. Royal Ins. Co. of Liverpool, England, Stoddard (1912) 201 Fed. 915, 120 C. C. A. 434. When the complainant's bill asserts an interest in property worth $33,000, by reason of having become responsible therefor under policies of insurance, and alleges that such property will be wholly lost to him through action of the defendants which it is sought to restrain, the amount in controversy is that claimed by the complainant, and the jurisdiction of the circuit court is not defeated by a contention on the part of the defendant that, under the allegations of the bill, the complainant's claim is less than the jurisdictional amount. Insurance Co. of North America v. Svendsen (C. C. 1896) 74 Fed. 346.

An action by heirs to set aside, as fraudulent, judgments rendered by a probate court against the estate, none of which exceeds the necessary amount, cannot be brought within the jurisdiction of the federal court by reason of the fact that the real estate on which the judgments are liens exceeds in value that amount. McDaniel v. Traylor (C. C. 1903) 123 Fed. 338, reversed (1905) 25 Sup. Ct. 369, 196 U. S. 415, 49 L. Ed. 533.

The value of the matter in dispute must be determined by the amount claimed in the pleading, but such amount will not control when the allegations of the petition show that the amount in controversy is less than that for which judgment is prayed. Bacon v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (Iowa, 1912) 137 N. W. 1011.

Validity of

claim.-The

106. amount claimed by a complainant in his bill in good faith determines the amount in controversy for the purpose of federal jurisdiction, and, where such claim exceeds the statutory amount, exclusive of interest and costs, the court has jurisdiction, notwithstanding there may be a good defense apparent on the face of the bill, which will reduce the amount of the recovery below that sum. Schunk v. Moline Milburn & Stoddart Co. (1893) 147 U. S. 500, 13 Sup. Ct. 416, 37 L. Ed. 255; Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co. (1898) 18 Sup. Ct. 645, 170 U. S. 468, 42 L. Ed. 1111; Battle v. Atkinson (1903) 24 S. Ct. 845, 191 U. S. 559, 48 L. Ed. 302 (affirming decree [C. C. 1902] 115 Fed. 384); Interstate Building & Loan Ass'n v. Edgefield Hotel Co. (C. C. 1901) 109 Fed. 692; Armstrong v. Walters (D. C. 1915) 219 Fed. 320, new trial denied (D. C. 1915) 223 Fed. 451.

Plaintiff's allegations of value govern in determining the jurisdiction of a federal court, except where, upon the face of his own pleadings, it is not legally possible for him to recover the jurisdictional amount, or where such allegations are fraudulently made to create Smithers the jurisdiction. v. Smith (1907) 27 Sup. Ct. 297, 298, 204 U. S. 632, 51 L. Ed. 656; Armstrong v. Walters (D. C. 1915) 219 Fed. 320, new trial denied (D. C. 1915) 223 Fed. 451.

The matter in dispute is the claim presented on the record for the consideration of the court, and what plaintiff thus claims is the matter in dispute, though it may be incapable of proof, or only in part well founded. Kanouse v. Martin (1853) 15 How. 198, 207, 14 L. Ed. 660.

The amount in dispute, in an action for jurisdictional purposes in a federal court, is determined by the amount claimed by the plaintiff in his pleading, in good faith although such claim is made under a mistake of fact, as subsequently shown by the evidence. Kunkel v. Brown (1900) 99 Fed. 593, 39 C. C. A. 665.

Where the amount claimed in a bill to enforce a lien exceeds the requisite amount, the jurisdiction of a federal court is not defeated by the fact that it appears on the face of the bill that an action to recover a portion of the claim is barred by limitation, under a state statute. Waterfield v. Rice (1901) 111 Fed. 625, 49 C. C. A. 504.

Where the complaint contains the requisite allegations as to the amount in controversy, jurisdiction is not defeated because other matters alleged tend to show that the allegation as to jurisdiction is not well founded, unless such fact is a certainty from the pleadings. T. C. Henry & Sons & Co. v. Colorado Farm & Live Stock Co. (1908) 164 Fed. 986, 91 C. C. A. 16.

Where, in a suit in the federal courts to set aside conveyances as fraudulent

and a cloud on plaintiffs' title, the plaintiffs allege that the value of the land is more than the statutory amount, but it appears by undisputed testimony in support of a plea to the jurisdiction that it was much less, an order of dismissal must be entered. Simon v. House (C. C. 1891) 46 Fed. 317.

It is sufficient to sustain the jurisdiction, where the requisite jurisdictional facts are shown by the complaint, that it does not at any time thereafter satisfactorily appear to the court that the suit does not really and substantially involve the jurisdictional amount. Maffet v. Quine (C. C. 1899) 95 Fed. 199.

A prayer for relief for a stated sum and all other proper relief does not show the requisite amount when, under the pleadings, there was no other proper relief obtainable. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Worman (1895) 12 Ind. App. 494, 40 N. E. 751; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Ryan (1903) 68 N. E. 923, 31 Ind. App. 597.

107. Effect of answer.-An averment in a bill in equity in a federal court that the amount or value in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount, exclusive of interest and costs, does not give the court jurisdiction unless sustained by proof where it is put in issue and such issue may be taken by answer. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. v. Shell (C. C. 1904) 143 Fed. 1004, affirming decree on rehearing (C. C. 1903) 125 Fed. 979.

Where a bill in the federal courts to enjoin the business of buying and selling nontransferable railroad tickets alleged that the value of the business sought to be protected amounted to $5,000, exclusive of interest and costs, such averment would be treated as prima facie true for the purpose of sustaining the court's jurisdiction, notwithstanding an allegation in the answer that the amount in controversy was less than the jurisdictional amount, until defendant had sustained the burden of affirmatively showing that the requisite jurisdictional amount was wanting during the progress of the case. Pennsylvania Co. v. Bay (C. C. 1905) 138 Fed. 203.

Where plaintiff, suing in the District Court, demanded in good faith judgment for over $3,000, and defendant pleaded the general issue and an affirmative defense, the District Court had jurisdiction. Brent v. Chas. H. Lilly Co. (D. C. 1913) 202 Fed. 335.

108. Effect of verdict less than jurisdictional amount.-Where an inspection of the declaration does not and could not disclose but that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount claimed, a verdict in a sum less than the jurisdictional amount would not defeat the court's jurisdiction. Barry v. Edmunds (1886) 116 U. S. 550, 6 Sup. Ct. 501, 29 L. Ed. 729; Scott v. Donald (1897) 17 Sup. Ct. 265, 268, 165 U. S. 58, 41 L. Ed. 632; North Amer

ican Transportation & Trading Co. v. Morrison (1900) 20 Sup. Ct. 869, 871, 178 U. S. 262, 44 L. Ed. 1061; Jones v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. (1897) 82 Fed. 295, 27 C. C. A. 133; Levinski V. Middlesex Banking Co. (1899) 92 Fed. 449, 34 C. C. A. 452; Tennent-Stribling Shoe Co. v. Roper (1899) 94 Fed. 739, 36 C. C. A. 455; Washington County, Neb., v. Williams (1901) 111 Fed. 801, 49 C. C. A. 621; RoesslerHasslacher Chemical Co. v. Doyle (1905) 142 F. 118, 73 C. C. A. 174; Ung Lung Chung v. Holmes (C. C. 1899) 98 Fed. 323; Armstrong v. Walters (D. C. 1915) 223 Fed. 451, denying new trial (D. C. 1915) 219 Fed. 320.

The amount involved in a suit is not measured by the actual recovery, but by the amount claimed, provided it is claimed in good faith, and is not merely a colorable claim to give the court jurisdiction. Peeler v. Lathrop (1891) 48 Fed. 780, 1 C. C. A. 93; Denver City Tramway Co. v. Norton (1905) 141 Fed. 599, 73 C. C. A. 1; Hampton Stave Co. v. Gardner (1907) 154 Fed. 805, 83 C. C. A. 521; Hulsecamp v. Teel (C. C. 1796) Fed. Cas. No. 6,862; Muns v. De Nemours (C. C. 1810) Id. 9,931; Sherman v. Clark (C. C. 1842) Id. 12,763; Victor Sewing Mach. Co. v. Mingus (C. C. 1878) Fed. Cas. No. 16,936; Hill v. Gordon (C. C. 1891) 45 Fed. 276 (appeal dismissed [1893] 13 S. Ct. 1047, 149 U. S. 775, 37 L. Ed. 963); Risley v. City of Utica (C. C. 1910) 179 Fed. 875; Murphy v. Howard (Super. Ct., Ark. 1833) Fed. Cas. No. 9,949a.

The matter in dispute is the claim presented on the record for the consideration of the court, and what plaintiff thus claims is the matter in dispute, though it may be incapable of proof, or only in part well founded. Kanouse v. Martin (1853) 15 How. 198, 207, 14 L. Ed. 660; Building & Loan Ass'n of Dakota v. Cunningham (1898) 47 S. W. 714, 92 Tex. 155.

(H) Allegations in pleadings

109. Necessity of allegation of jurisdictional amount.-The pleadings must show that the matter in dispute exceeds the jurisdictional value to give the court jurisdiction. Udall v. The Ohio (1854) 17 How. 17, 18, 15 L. Ed. 42; Fuller v. Montague (1893) 59 Fed. 212, 214, 8 C. C. A. 100; Robinson v. Suburban Brick Co. (1904) 127 Fed. 804, 62 C. C. A. 484; U. S. v. Pratt Coal & Coke Co. (C. C. 1883) 18 Fed. 708; Large v. Consolidated Nat. Bank (C. C. 1905) 137 Fed. 168; Mayer v. Cohrs (C. C. 1911) 188 Fed. 443.

In ejectment the estate is the matter in dispute, and its value must appear in the declaration or by proof. Lanning v. Dolph (C. C. 1826) Fed. Cas. No. 8.073; Crawford v. Burnham (C. C. 1871) Fed. Cas. No. 3,366; Greene v. City of Tacoma (C. C. 1892) 53 Fed. 562.

Where a cause transferred from a

late territorial court to a federal court seeks to abate a nuisance caused by obstructions in navigable waters, and the petition fails to show that the plaintiff has suffered damages to the jurisdictional amount, the federal court cannot take jurisdiction, and the case must be remanded. Kenyon v. Knipe (C. C. 1891) 46 Fed. 309.

In a contest over defendant's right to a patent for a mining claim, the only allegations in the record as to the value of the claim were those in defendant's answer, that it had expended over $50,000. Held that, in the absence of any allegation showing this sum to have been expended on the portion of the claim to which plaintiff sets up title, and that such expenditure had benefited the claim, the record did not show that the matter in dispute exceeded the jurisdictional amount, so as to enable the Idaho federal circuit court to retain jurisdiction of the cause, which had been transferred to it from the territorial court. Back v. Sierra Nevada Consol. Min. Co. (C. C. 1891) 46 Fed. 673.

A bill to restrain defendants from issuing a circular alleged to be detrimental to plaintiff's business, and from interfering with that business, which does not allege the amount of damages sustained or apprehended, or the value of the matter in controversy, is not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. Home Ins. Co. v. Nobles (C. C. 1894) 63 Fed. 641.

In a suit by an adverse claimant to establish his right of possession to a mining claim, it is essential that the bill should show the value of the property in controversy to be sufficient to bring the suit within the requirements of the general statute prescribing the jurisdiction of the court. Yellow Aster Min. & Mill. Co. v. Winchell (C. C. 1899) 95 Fed. 213.

Under the rule that the jurisdiction of a federal court must affirmatively appear from the record, a bill for the partition of lands does not state a case within the jurisdiction where it shows the value of complainant's interest therein to be less than the jurisdictional amount. Southern Land & Timber Co. v. Johnson (C. C. 1907) 156 Fed. 246.

110. Sufficiency of allegation.-A bill by a building and loan association to foreclose a mortgage securing a contract under which the association advanced to a shareholder $2,000 in anticipation of the maturity of his shares, and by which he agreed to make payments until the shares reached the par value of $4,000, less the dues previously paid, alleging a default, and that but $1,200 had been paid, showed on its face that the matter in dispute exceeded the statutory amount, exclusive of interest and costs, and therefore involved the jurisdictional amount. Building & Loan Ass'n of Dakota v. 1 U.S.COMP.'16-38

Price (1898) 18 Sup. Ct. 251, 254, 169 U. S. 45, 42 L. Ed. 655.

An allegation that the "amount in dispute" is more than the statutory sum, exclusive of interest and costs, is not insufficient to show that the case is within the jurisdiction of a federal court merely because it says the "amount" instead of the "matter" in dispute. Blackburn v. Portland Gold Min. Co. (1900) 20 Sup. Ct. 222, 223, 175 U. S. 571, 44 L. Ed. 276.

A bill for injunction against taxes, brought by a railroad company against a revenue agent who represents all the parties interested, sufficiently states the jurisdictional amount when it alleges that the taxes assessed amount to a specified sum, much larger than the jurisdictional limit; and a question not arising on the face of the bill, as to how the taxes, when collected, would be disposed of, and in what proportions and amounts they would be parceled out to interested municipalities, is immaterial. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Adams (1901) 21 Sup. Ct. 251, 180 U. S. 28, 45 L. Ed. 410.

The amount of the damages involved in an action for the breach of a written contract to deliver oil at a specified price f. o. b. buyer's tanks at seller's mill is not increased, for jurisdictional purposes, over and above the difference between the contract and market value by allegations in the petition that the seller had notice that the buyer would be compelled to send its tanks from distant points to the seller's mill; that in so doing transportation charges were incurred and the use of the tanks lost for 30 days; that seller was well aware that buyer had contracts over, and "had contracted to that end" with buyer; and that seller, contemplating the breach of its contract, maliciously caused the buyer to send the tanks a specified distance at a specified cost. Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co. (1903) 23 Sup. Ct. 754, 755, 190 U. S. 540, 47 L. Ed. 1171.

In the absence of a plea to the jurisdiction, an allegation in a bill for a mandatory injunction that the damage is irreparable, and greatly exceeds $2,COO (the statutory amount at that time), is sufficient to give jurisdiction, though denied by the answer, and not proved. Butchers' & Drovers' Stockyards Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (1895) 67 Fed. 35, 14 C. C. A. 290.

Although one count is for less than the requisite amount, it is sufficient if there are other counts so framed that, in case of failure to establish the first count, it is legally possible for plaintiff to recover a sum exceeding the jurisdictional amount. Hayward v. Nordberg Mfg. Co. (1898) 85 Fed. 4, 29 C. C. A. 438.

In a suit to foreclose a mortgage securing a sum just equal to the statutory amount, the bill alleged that plaintiff advanced an additional $2.25 to pay the

(593)