CHAPTER XVI. COSTS WHEN RECOVERY LESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOL § 59. Statutes. LARS. 60. Amount in Dispute-Rulings as to Meaning. 61. Recovery Less Than Five Hundred Dollars. § 59. Statutes. Act Sept. 24, 1789, c. 20, § 20 (1 Stat. p. 83): "That where, in a circuit court, a plaintiff in an action originally brought there, or a petitioner in equity, other than the United States, recovers less than the sum or value of five hundred dollars, or a libelant, upon his own appeal, less than the sum or value of three hundred dollars, he shall not be allowed, but at the discretion of the court may be adjudged to pay, costs." The act of March 3, 1803 (2 Stat. 244), changed the wording only as to admiralty proceedings, reducing the amount of recovery to fifty dollars. Rev. St. 1873-74, § 968, is as follows: "When, in a circuit court, a plaintiff in an action at law originally brought there, or a petitioner in equity, other than the United States, recovers less than the sum or value of five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, in a case which cannot be brought there unless the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds said sum or value, or a libelant, upon his own appeal, recovers less than the sum or value of three hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, he shall not be allowed, but at the discretion of the court may be adjudged to pay, costs." $ 60. Amount in dispute-Rulings as to meaning. Case No. 1. Mississippi & M. R. Co. v. Ward (1862) 2 Black, 485. The bill sought the removal of a bridge across the Mississippi river as an obstruction to navigation, and, in answer to the contention that complainant did not show jurisdiction, the supreme court said: "The want of a sufficient amount of damages having been sustained to give the federal court jurisdiction will not defeat the remedy, as the removal of the obstruction is the matter of controversy, and the value of the object must govern." Case No. 2. Symonds v. Greene (1886) 28 Fed. 834. On motion for preliminary injunction in a trademark case, it appeared that defendant's profits on sales were much less than five hundred dollars, and it was contended that the court had no jurisdiction. Wheeler, J., said: "As jurisdiction is not given to this court in this class of cases, except where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of five hundred dollars, there would be difficulty in maintaining the ju risdiction if the profits to be recovered were the measure of the orator's rights involved; but that is not so understood. An injunction may be of much greater value to the orator than any amount he may show himself entitled to, and it cannot be said now that such value may not exceed the limit required." Case No. 3. Whitman v. Hubbell (1887; S. D. N. Y.) 30 Fed. 81. The suit was brought to restrain the maintenance of § 60 an awning. Judge Wheeler said: "The matter in dispute is the value of the right to maintain the awning, not the amount of damage done by it to the plaintiff. Mississippi & M. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485. This appears to be more than five hundred dollars." Case No. 4. Eastman v. Sherry (1889; E. D. Wis.) 37 Fed. 844 (at law). Subsequent to the judiciary act of March 3, 1887, (24 Stat. 552), the plaintiff's brought suit in trespass, claiming damages in $5,000. At the trial they recovered over $500, and less than the sum limited by the statute. To the objection that plaintiffs were not entitled to costs, Judge Jenkins said: "Upon change of the minimum amount essential to jurisdiction, this restriction as to costs, either by design or misprision, remained unaltered. It was not changed to conform to the changed conditions of jurisdiction. It is urged that by analogy he who recovers less than the present jurisdictional limit should not recover costs. notwithstanding the provisions of section 968 remain unchanged. It must be borne in mind that at common law costs were unknown. They are the creature of statute. It rests with legislative authority to grant or deny them, and to determine in what cases and under what circumstances they should be allowed. It may seem appropriate that this law should be altered to conform to changed conditions. That, however, is matter for the legislative, not the judicial, authority. Courts can only administer the law as it is found. The plaintiff must be held to be entitled to costs." Case No. 5. Johnson v. Watkins (1889) 40 Fed. 187. In this case the ruling of Judge Jenkins in Eastman v. Sherry was followed by Judge Severens. Case No. 6. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Kuteman (1892) 4 C. C. A. 503, 54 Fed. 547. Complainant alleged that its right to establish a rate "is a valuable one, and of the value of more than $10,000," and prayer was made for injunction and for general relief. The bill was demurred to. The court of appeals say (page 508): "In a suit for an injunction, the amount in dispute is the value of the object to be gained by the bill. Fost. Fed. Pr. § 16. An injunction may be of much greater value to the complainant than the amount in controversy in cases of dispute which have already arisen. Symonds v. Greene, 28 Fed. 834; Whitman v. Hubbell, 30 Fed. 81. The maintenance of its rates is the real subject of dispute, and the object of the bill and the value of the object must be considered. Mississippi & M. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485. This value not being liquidated or fixed by law, the alleged value, especially on demurrer to the bill, must govern." Case No. 7. Rainey v. Herbert (1893; 3d Cir.) 5 C. C. A. 183, 55 Fed. 443. The court, per Dallas, J., said: "This is an appeal from a decree for an injunction restraining the erection of certain coke ovens. The jurisdiction of the circuit court was dependent upon the amount involved in the controversy. There was some conflict of testimony as to the amount of the damage which would result to the complainants from the construction and operation of the ovens, but the court below found that the averment that it would exceed $2,000 was supported by abundant evidence, and, if the matter in dispute were simply and solely the threatened injury to the plaintiffs, this finding of fact might be accepted as in itself conclusive; but if this were otherwise, the want of a sufficient amount of damage having been alleged and proved to give the federal courts jurisdiction would not defeat the remedy, as the prohibition of the contemplated erection of the ovens was the matter of controversy, and the value of that object (admittedly in excess of the jurisdictional amount) must govern. Mississippi & M. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485, 492. Consequently, the first assignment of error has not been maintained." Case No. 8. Smith v. Bivens (1893) 56 Fed. 354. Defendant permitted his cattle to graze on complainant's lands, and the bill was for injunction. Defendant contended that the matter in controversy did not exceed the value of $2,000; but Judge Simonton held that, as it was shown complainant had derived an income of $500 per annum for the use of the land, that sum capitalized at 4 per cent., etc., up to 7 per cent., would represent the income from $12,500, etc., down to $7,100, and also that the land itself was shown to be worth not less than $2,640, and said (page 354): "This is the matter complained of, and measures the injury for which complainant seeks redress. The case comes within Mississippi & M. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 492, or, as it is stated in Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Kuteman, 54 Fed. 552, in a suit for an injunction, the amount. in dispute is the value of the object to be gained by the bill." |