The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-05-02

50 900, and arising under the constitution
and laws of the United States or treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their
authority" This provision was discussed
in United States VS.. Sayward, 16 u. s.,
493 The court there held that the circuit
court cannot, under the statute, take orig
inal cognizance of a case arising under
the constitution or laws of the United
States unless the sum or value of the
matter in dispute. exclusive of interest
and costs. exceeds $4,000
1t is true that in that the only ques-
ton involved did the limitations apply
to it by the United States and it was
held it did not apply. But the CON
clusion reached was sustained by a
comparison of the phraseology used
when suits by the United States were
provided for and the omission to re-
state these words which had been used
IL the other subdivisions prescribing
the jurisdiction of the circuit courts.
The point, however, was explicitly de-
cided in Fishback VS.. Western Union
Tel. Co., 161 U. S., 80. And it was
again affirmed in Holt vs.. The Indiana
Mfg Co., 176 U. s., 723 THE diff
Guilty. says the court, lis that the
pecuniary limitation of over two thou
sand dollars applied and the taxes in
question did not make that amount. And
the effect on future taxation of a de-
cision that the particular taxation is in
valid cannot be availed of to add to the
sum or value of the matter in dispute"
This case quotes as authority for this
New England Mortgage Co. VS.. Gay, 145
T. S., 1913; Clay Center VS.. Farmers
Loan and Trust Co. 145 U, S., 224; Citi-
zens' Bank vs. Cannon, 164 Z. s., 319;
Walter VS.. N 2. R. R. Co., 147 U. S.,
$40; Carne VS.. Russ, 152 U. s., $50 And
this conclusion was maintained notwith-
standing the fact that under the opera
ton of the act of March Sd, 1891, there
is no pecuniary limitation on appeals di-
rectly from the circuit court to the Su-
preme Court under the Paguate Habana,
175 U. s., 6G7, Evidently this means
when the jurisdiction of the circuit court
is in question the act of 1878 is still
and fixes the law. The amount
OF the taxes in this case is $50, and
from this case it would appear that this
is the amount in controversy. 1t Is
charged that cloud has been created
on the title of property largely exceeding
this amount and perhaps greater in value
than 50 600 but this will not affect the
question. In Ross VS.. Prentiss, 8
How'd, 772 the court says "the motion
to dismiss the appeal is resisted by the
who insists that the jurisdic-
ton depends on the value of the property
upon which the execution has been laid
and the amount of appellants interest
in it. And as the property is worth |
much more than the sum required to
give jurisdiction he has right to appeal |
to this court from the circuit court be-
cause he may lose the whole benefit of
his property by a forced sale"
We think otherwise The only amount
ir controversy is the amount claimed
in the execution. The question is |
the property in question is La
Bile to be charged with it or not. The |
does not depend upon any |
contingent loss or damage which one
of the parties may sustaine by a de- |
cision against him, but upon the amount |
in dispute between them, and as that /
amount IN this case is below $4,000 the I
appeal must be dismissed.
With a clear conviction that the ae- |
ton of the sheriff in this matter is en-
tirely invalid. l have reached reluc- |
family the conclusion that the court is /
without jurisdiction to offer the relief /
asked. The bill must therefore be dis |
missed, but without prejudice to the |
right of the complainant to seek his |
remedy in any other tribunal. Moth |
ing is now decided except that the case /
does not come within the limited juris-
diction cf this court.
(Signed) CHAS. II. SIMONTON,
Circuit Judge.
98tn Anril 1902