Case Name: ROGERS v. HENNEPIN COUNTY
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1916-01-17
Citations: 239 U.S. 621
Docket Number: No. 411
Parties: ROGERS v. HENNEPIN COUNTY.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 239
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
ROGERS v. HENNEPIN COUNTY.
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.
No. 411.
Argued December 6, 1915.
Decided January 17, 1916.
In an action brought by a number of complainants to restrain the collection of a tax separately assessed against each for under forty dollars, the aggregate exceeding the jurisdictional amount, held that the District Court did not have jurisdiction, as the amount as to each complainant was the sum charged against him, and demands against all could not be aggregated in order to confer jurisdiction. Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379.
The facts, which involve the method of determining the amount in controversy in order to give jurisdiction to the District Court, are stated in the opinion.
Mr. H. V. Mercer for appellants.
Mr. Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, with whom Mr. William J. Stevens and Mr. John M. Rees were on the brief, for appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McReynolds
delivered the opinion of the court.
Three complainants, claiming to represent themselves and others like situated (numbering altogether 550), instituted this proceeding in equity against Hennepin County, Minnesota, and certain of its officers, in the District Court of the United States, seeking an injunction to prevent collection of a tax under forty dollars assessed against each of them, for the year 1913, on account of his membership in the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce. Defendants challenged the court's power to entertain the cause upon the ground that the amount in controversy as to each complainant is the sum charged against him and demands against all cannot be aggregated in order to confer jurisdiction. The District Court sustained this objection upon authority of Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379, and dismissed the bill. It committed no error in so doing, and its judgment is
Affirmed.