TROY BANK
v.
G. A. WHITEHEAD & COMPANY (INCORPORATED)

U.S. | 1911-11-06
No. 566
222 U.S. 39 Supreme Court of the United States (1911) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 56 L. Ed. 81 · 32 S. Ct. 9 · SCDB 1911-046 · 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1866
Cited by 199 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Troy Bank sued G. A. Whitehead & Company to enforce a vendor's lien on Kentucky land securing two promissory notes totaling $2,400, with the Circuit Court's jurisdiction depending on whether the amount in controversy exceeded $2,000. The Supreme Court held that when multiple plaintiffs unite to enforce a single, common, and undivided interest (rather than separate demands), their collective interests are aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement, and therefore reversed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Van.Devanter

Mr. Justice Van.Devanter delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit in equity wherein the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was invoked on the ground of diverse citizenship, and the sole question now presented for decision is whether the sum or value of the matter in dispute exceeded two thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, as required by the act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, § 1, 25 Stat. 433. The facts are these:

Upon a sale of land situate in the western district of Kentucky, the vendor lawfully reserved a vendor’s lien for the unpaid portion of the purchase price, for which he took two promissory notes of $1,200 each, payable in. one and two years. Shortly thereafter the notes were assigned to the present appellants, one to each; and by the law of Kentucky the vendor’s lien passed to the assignees, as a common security for the payment of both notes, without any priority of right in either assignee. After the maturity of the notes, both remaining wholly unpaid, the assignees jointly brought this suit to enforce the vendor’s lien. They and their assignor were citizens of Indiana, and the defendant, who acquired the land with notice of the lien, was a citizen of Kentucky.

By a demurrer to the bill the defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, upon the ground that the matter in dispute was not of the requisite jurisdictional value; and the court, being of opinion that such value was not to be measured by the extent to which the plaintiffs collectively were seeking to enforce the lien as a common security, but by the extent to which each was interested in its enforcement, sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction. 184 Fed. Rep. 932. The plaintiffs then appealed directly to this court, and the Circuit Court appropriately certified the question of jurisdiction. Act of March 3, 1891,, c. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 826.

When two or more plaintiffs, having separate and distinct demands, unite for convenience and economy in a singlé suit, it is essential that the demand of each be of the requisite jurisdictional amount; but when several plaintiffs unite to enforce a single title or right, in which they have a common and undivided interest, it is enough if their interests collectively equal the jurisdictional amount. Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. 3; Rodd v. Heartt, 17 Wall. 354; Davies v. Corbin, 112 U. S. 36, 40; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27; New Orleans Pacific Railway Co. v. Parker, 143 U. S. 42; Walter v. Northeastern Railroad Co., 147 U. S. 370, 373; Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 647; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28.

The present suit is of the latter class. Its controlling object — that which makes it cognizable in equity — is the enforcement of the vendor’s lien, which is a single thing or entity in which the plaintiffs have a common and undivided interest, and which neither can enforce in the absence of the other. Thus, while their claims under the notes were separate and distinct, their claim under, the vendor’s lien was.single and undivided, and the lien was sought to be enforced as a common security for the payment of both notes.

It follows that the Circuit Court erred in holding that it was without jurisdiction; and its decree is accordingly

Reversed, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the bill and to take such further proceedings in the case as may be appropriate.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (53 total)

  • Burkhart v. Gowin, 86 Fla. 376 (Fla. 1923)
    …R. C. L. 1055; American Soda Fountain v. Battle, 85 Ark. 213, 107 S. W. Rep. 672; Carroll County Bank v. State, 95 Ark. 194, 128 S. W. Rep. 1042; Winer v. Bank of Blytheville, 89 Ark. 435, 117 S. W. Rep. 232, 131 Am. St. Rep. 102; 187 Mo. App. 469; 222 U. S. 39. In some jurisdictions the matter is regulated by statute. See Martin v. Goods, 111 N. C. 288, 16 S. E. Rep. 232; [*384] Johnson v. Cooke, 85 Conn. 679, 84 Atl. Rep. 97; 15 C. J. 770. See Wilson v. Sparkman, 17 Fla. 871. The demands alleged in the…
  • Zahn v. Int'l Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1973)
    …eral-question jurisdiction of the district courts, 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a), is sought to be invoked.2 A classic statement of the dichotomy that developed in construing and applying [*294] these sections is found in Troy Bank v. G. A. Whitehead & Co., 222 U. S. 39, 40-41 (1911): “When two or more plaintiffs, having separate and distinct demands, unite for convenience and economy-in a single suit, it is essential that the demand of each be of the requisite jurisdictional amount; but when several plaintiffs un…
    1 / 3
  • Lion Bonding & Sur. Co. v. Karatz, 262 U.S. 77 (U.S. 1923)
    …those cases in which several plaintiffs, having a common undivided interest, unite to enforce a single title or right, and in which it is enough that their interests collectively equal the ’jurisdictional amount. Troy Bank v. G. A. Whitehead & Co., 222 U. S. 39, 41. In the case at bar, if several creditors of the company, each with a debt less than $3,000, had joined as plaintiffs, the demands could not have been aggregated in order to confer jurisdiction. Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U. S. 621; Scott v.…

Previewing 3 of 53 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw