UNITED STATES V.
81 (No. 3,704.)
UNITED STATES 11.
C.
HUFFMASTER.
(Oircuit OfJurt,
No D. Oalifornia. May 21,1888.)
CoURTS-FEDERAL CIROUIT COURTS-JURISDIOTIONAL AMOUNT.
Under the act of March 3, 1875, (Supp. Rev. St. 173,) the circuit courts have no jurisdiction of an action to recover money or property wherein the United States are plaintiffs, unless the amount or value of the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $500, exclusive of costs.
,Syllabus by the OOU'l't.)
J. Oarrq;, U. S. Atty., for plaintiff. Wm. H. Cook, for defendant. Before SAWYER, Circuit Judge. SAWYER, J. This is a suit by the United States for the value of 50 cords of wood, cut upon the public lands in Colusa county by the de.fendant, and converted to ris own use. The wood is alleged to be of the value of $250, for which sum plaintiffs demand judgment. The suit was brought on June 6, 1885, when the act to determine the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States, etc., approved March 3., 1875, (Supp. Rev. St. 173,) was in force. The objection is made by the defendant that, the amount in controversy being less than $500, this court has no jurisdiction, and that the action must be dismissed on that Kround.. The court is of the. opinion that the objection is well taken. The clause in the !lct of 1789 (1 St. p. 78, § 11) giving jurisdiction to the circuit courts in this class of cases reads as follows: . "That the circuit courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners." It is perfectly clear that, under this act, the circuit courts would not have jUrisdiction ina case of this kind brQughtby the United States, where the amount sought to be recovered is less than $500. The language is susceptible of but one construction. In .the Revised Statutes,which were only intended to collate and consolidate the existing statutes without changing the meaning, section 629, covering these matters of jurisdiction, the subject-matter in classes, and expresses the various provisions in language as well as arrangement somewhat different from that found in the original statutes then in force. The provision embracing the subject-matter of this suit is as follows: "Sec. 629. The circuit COUl'ts shall have original jurisdiction as follows: Fi1Wt. Of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where tne matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and an alien is a party. ... * * Second. Of all suits in eqUity, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and the United States are petitioners. Third. Of all v.35F.no.2-6
a.
82
FEDERAL REPORTER.
snits at cOmmon law where the United States. 01' any officer thereof suing under the of any act of copgress, :are It is contended that, under this third clause, the value of matter in controversy, as an element of jurisdiction, was eliminated in all aci,ions at common law wherein the United States are plaintiffs, and that this provision is applicable to the case in hand. It may be doubtful what the effect of the change in the language and arrangement is, but it is not probable that any ohange in the law was contemplated by the commissioners, for that would be to exceed their authority. Whatever the construction should be, however, it cannot affect this case, for the whole subject-matter was gone over, and embraced in the act of March 3, 1875, in which these several provisions determining' the jurisdiction of the circuit courts in such matters was reconstructed; and the question raised must be determined by the provisioll8' of that act. Section 1 of the act of 1875 provides as follows: "That the circuit courts of the l1hited States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with tbe courts of the several states,ofall suits of a civil nature, at common law, or in equity, wheret1;le matter in. dispute exceeds, exclusive dollars; and arising under the conof costs. the sum Qr value of (ive stitution or laws of the United,States, or treaties mader or which shall be made, under their'authority, or in thEjUnited States are'plaintHis or petition. . ers," etc. " Thus congress returns substantially to the language used in the act of 1789, and makes beyond. qtrestion the valueo'fthe matter in controversy an essential element· in the jurisdiction.. If,' therefore, section 629, Rev. St., Will bear the construction iusisted On by the United States attorney, it isnecessarily in conflictwith the. act of 1875, and is expressly by section 10 of that act. See Hydev.Ruble, 104 U. S.410; Ki'rl,gv; (l.crneU, 106 U. S. 396,1 Sup. Ct'. Rep. 312; Railroad Co. v.Batea, 11l}t{. f). 464, 7 Rep. 285. It follows the views expressed tha:t the circuit court has no jurisdiction of this case, the value of the matter in dispute being only $250, and it must be dismissed on ,that ground·. The United States will have to go into the .state court if ,they desire to recover; and.it is just that it should ;be so, as it would be a great hardsh,ip upon litigants if they were compelled to go four or five hundred miles from home to litigate such smallll,mounts with the. government, as would be obFged to do in Let the suit be dismissed, prejudice, for want of jurisdictioll'
UNITED STATES UNITED STATES
'II.
83 (No. 4,998.)
V.
L. HUFFMASTER.
(OwC'Uitpo'U'I't,N. D. Oalifornia.
May 21, 1888.)
COURTS-FEDERAL CmcUIT COURTS-JURISDICTIONAL AlIOlJNT.
Under the act 4... March 8, 18fl7, (24 St. at Large, 562,) the United Stat"A cfr· cuit oourts have no jurisdiction of an Rcdon to recover money or property wherein the t:Jnited 8tates are plaintiffs. unless the amou"t or value of the matter in controversy tlAceeds the sum of exclusive of costs.
(S1/llabtt, b1/ the OOU'I't.)
J. Oarey, U. S. Atty., for plaintiff. Wm. H. Cook, for defendant. Before SAWYER, Circuit Judge. SAWYER, J. This is an action to recover the possession of 60 corda of wood cut upon the public lands, alleged to be of the value of $372. The suit was commenced on July 12, 1887, and it therefore falls under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, amendatory of the act of 1875, to determine the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States, etc;, (24 St. 552.) The provision of section 1, conferring jurisdiction, is, in al1respects affecting the question of jurisdiction in this case, substantially the same as in the act of 1875, except that it raises the value of the matter in controversy in order to give jurisdiction from $500 to $2,000. The value of the wood sought to be recovered being much less than $2,000, the court has no jurisdiction, and, as in the preceding case, (No. 3;704,) and for the reasons therein given, the suit must be dismissed, without for want of jurisdiction, and·it is so ordered.
UNITED STATES'll.
C. HUFFMASTER. (No.4,997.)
(OlreuitOourt, N. D. Oalifornia. .T. 0. Carey, U. S. Atty., for plainti1f. Wm. H. Oook, for defendant. Before SAWYER. Circuit JUdge.
Aay 21, 1888.\
,SAWYER.J. ·This·is an action similar to the last, to recover 150 cords of wood put upon public lands, of the alleged value of $960, commenced on July 12, 1l:Stl7. For r£>asons given in the two preceding cases, (Nos. 3,704 and 4,998,) t.he suit must be dismissed. without prejudice, for want of jurisdiction, and it is 80 oraered.