EACHUS v. HARTWELL et al.

EACHUS v. HARTWELL et al. (Circuit Court, S. D. California. December 30, 1901.) Jurisdiction of Federal Courts—Amount in Controversy—Suit to Enjoin Assessment for Street Improvements. In a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an assessment for street improvements, the amount or value in controversy, for the purpose of determining whether a federal court has jurisdiction, is the amount of the assessment. In Equity. Suit to enjoin enforcement of assessment for street improvements. On motion for preliminary injunction and on demurrer to bill. E. Edgar Galbreth, for complainant. F. G. Einlayson and John T. Jones, for defendants. Jurisdiction of circuit courts as determined by amount in controversy, see notes to Auer v. Lombard, 19 C. C. A. 75; Shoe Co. v. Roper, 36 C. C. A. 459. [MAJORITY — ROSS, Circuit Judge.] ROSS, Circuit Judge. The amount of the assessment in question in this suit being less than $2,000, the bill must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. U. S. v. Sayward, 160 U. S. 497, 16 Sup. Ct. 371, 40 L. Ed. 508; Fishback v. Telegraph Co., 161 U. S. 100, 16 Sup. Ct. 506, 40 L. Ed. 630; Transfer Co. v. Pendergrass, 16 C. C. A. 585, 70 Fed. 1; Wheless v. City of St. Rouis (C. C.) 96 Fed. 865. There is nothing tó the contrary in the case of Woodside v. Ciceroni, 35 C. C. A. 177, 93 Fed. 1, where it was held that in a suit to quiet title, or to remove a cloud therefrom, it is not the value of the defendant’s claim which is the amount of the controversy, but the whole of the real estate to which the claim extends. Injunction denied, and demurrer sustained, and bill dismissed, at •complainant’s cost.