The errors assigned are first in overruling the demurrer, second
in holding that the court had jurisdiction to seize and sequester
the property to secure the payment of a debt not yet due, third in
holding that it had jurisdiction to issue an attachment upon a
demand not yet due, and fourth in allowing an attorney's fee. Of
course, the latter matter presents no question of jurisdiction.
With respect to the other assignments, the plaintiff was a
corporation created by and a citizen of the State of Ohio, and
Page 147 U. S. 504
the defendant a citizen of Nebraska. The jurisdiction of the
circuit court was therefore invoked on the ground of diverse
citizenship. By the Act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, c. 373, as
corrected by the Act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433, c. 866,
jurisdiction is given to the circuit courts over controversies
"between citizens of different states, in which the matter in
dispute exceeds" the sum or value of $2,000. The claim of the
plaintiff was to recover $2,194.13 and interest. The right to
recover this, or any part thereof, was challenged by the
demurrer.
In
Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10, this
Court said:
"A controversy was involved in the sense of the statute whenever
any property or claim of the parties capable of pecuniary
estimation was the subject of litigation, and was presented by the
pleadings for judicial determination."
Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165.
Within the letter of the statute, there was therefore a
controversy between citizens of different states in which the
matter in dispute was over the sum or value of $2,000.
It matters not that, by the showing in the petition, part of
this sum was not yet due. Plaintiff insisted that it had a right to
recover all. That was its claim, and the claim was disputed by the
defendant. Suppose there were no statute in Nebraska like that
referred to, and the plaintiff filed a petition exactly like the
one before us, excepting that no attachment was asked for, and the
right to recover anything was challenged by demurrer, would not the
matter in dispute be the amount claimed in the petition? Although
there might be a perfect defense to the suit for at least the
amount not yet due, yet the fact of a defense, and a good defense,
too, would not affect the question as to what was the amount in
dispute. Suppose an action were brought on a nonnegotiable note for
$2,500, the consideration for which was fully stated in the
petition, and which was a sale of lottery tickets, or any other
matter distinctly prohibited by statute, can there be a doubt that
the circuit court would have jurisdiction? There would be presented
a claim to recover the $2,500, and
Page 147 U. S. 505
whether that claim was sustainable or not, that would be the
real sum in dispute. In short, the fact of a valid defense to a
cause of action, although apparent on the face of the petition,
does not diminish the amount that is claimed nor determine what is
the matter in dispute, for who can say in advance that that defense
will be presented by the defendant or, if presented, sustained by
the court? We do not mean that a claim, evidently fictitious and
alleged simply to create a jurisdictional amount, is sufficient to
give jurisdiction. In
Bowman v. Chicago &c. Railway,
115 U. S. 611, the
damages as originally stated in the declaration were $1,200. By
amendment, they were raised to $10,000, but, it being evident that
the increase was simply to give this Court jurisdiction on error,
and not because there was really a claim for any such damages, the
case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The authorities on
this question are collected in the opinion of Chief Justice Waite,
and it may be laid down as a general proposition that no mere
pretense as to the amount in dispute will avail to create
jurisdiction. But here there was no pretense. The plaintiff in
evident good faith, and relying upon the express language of a
statute, asserted a right to recover for $2,000, and that its claim
was not merely specious is shown by the fact that, after a contest,
it did recover a judgment for the full amount that it claimed. A
case much in point is that of
Upton v. McLaughlin,
105 U. S. 640,
105 U. S. 644.
That was a suit brought by an assignee in bankruptcy more than two
years after the cause of action accrued, and it was claimed that
the trial court had no jurisdiction, because of a provision of
section 5057 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, that
"No suit, either at law or in equity, shall be maintainable in
any court between an assignee in bankruptcy and a person claiming
an adverse interest touching any property or rights of property
transferable to or vested in such assignee unless brought within
two years from the time when the cause of action accrued for or
against such assignee."
But it was held that the court did have jurisdiction, and this
notwithstanding sections 55 and 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure
of Wyoming, the territory in which that litigation took place,
authorized
Page 147 U. S. 506
a defendant to demur to the petition when it appeared upon its
face either that the court had no jurisdiction or that the petition
did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and
also provided that these objections were not waived by not taking
them by either demurrer or answer. Speaking for the Court, MR.
JUSTICE BLATCHFORD said:
"It is contended that a petition which shows upon its face that
the cause of action is barred by a statute of limitation is a
petition which does not state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action, and that that objection, though not taken by
demurrer or answer, may be taken at any time. But we are of opinion
that the statutory provisions referred to cannot properly be
construed as allowing the defense of a bar by a statute of
limitation to be raised for the first time in an appellate court,
even though the petition might have been demurred to as showing on
its face that the cause of action is so barred, and thus as not
stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."
In other words, it was held that although there was a perfect
defense apparent upon the face of the petition, yet the court had
jurisdiction --
i.e. the right to hear and determine --
and further, in that case, that the defense was not available when
suggested for the first time in the appellate court. So here the
circuit court had jurisdiction because the amount claimed was over
$2,000, and although it appeared upon the face of the petition that
a part of the claim was not yet due, still the court had
jurisdiction -- the right to hear and determine whether this matter
constituted a good defense to any part of the amount claimed.
But it is said that the plaintiff in a federal court cannot
avail himself of the right given by a state statute to attach for a
claim not yet due, that state statutes can confer no jurisdiction
on the federal courts, and that therefore the circuit court had no
jurisdiction to issue the attachment in this case. Even if it were
conceded that such contention were well founded -- and we express
no opinion in that matter -- the result would not be, as claimed,
that the circuit court was ousted of all jurisdiction. It would be
simply an instance in
Page 147 U. S. 507
which a court having jurisdiction gave to a party greater relief
than he was entitled to. Surely the court, the matter in dispute
being over $2,000 and therefore a controversy within its
jurisdiction, has a right to hear and determine, in the exercise of
jurisdiction, whether the plaintiff was entitled to this
extraordinary relief. If it be conceded that it erred in granting
such relief, it would be simply a matter of error, and not one of
jurisdiction.
But was it error? Section 915, Revised Statutes, provides
that
"In common law causes in the circuit and district courts, the
plaintiff shall be entitled to similar remedies, by attachment or
other process, against the property of the defendant, which are now
provided by the laws of the state in which such court is held for
the courts thereof, and such circuit or district courts may, from
time to time, by general rules, adopt such state laws as may be in
force in the states where they are held in relation to attachments
and other process,
provided that similar preliminary
affidavits or proofs and similar security as required by such state
laws shall be first furnished by the party seeking such attachment
or other remedy."
It is sufficient to say that this section of the statute makes
it clear that a question was presented worthy at least of the
consideration of the circuit court, and whose determination, even
though erroneous, was not sufficient to oust the court of
jurisdiction.
Unquestionably the circuit court had jurisdiction, and if the
defendant sought to have any matter of error considered, it should
have taken the case to the circuit court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD dissents.
