involves Federal question not sufficient unless jurisdictional amount involved; Eaton v. Hoge, 141 Fed. 66, 5 Ann. Cas. 487, 72 C. C. A. 74, in suit by several owners of water rights in stream, joining for convenience only, jurisdictional amount must exist as to each complainant; Purnell v. Page, 128 Fed. 498, holding, under Act 1888, Circuit Court has no jurisdiction of suit to restrain collection of personal property tax of eighty dollars; Coulter v. Fargo, 127 Fed. 913, 62 C. C. A. 444, holding Federal courts without jurisdiction of suit to restrain enforcement of franchise tax of three thousand dollars where more than onethird was claimed by State; Coulter v. Weir, 127 Fed. 903, 62 C. С. А. 429, holding bill to restrain collection of franchise tax not maintainable where State board had valued franchise and auditor had given final notice before suit; McKee v. Chautauqua Assembly, 124 Fed. 809, sustaining jurisdiction of bill of leaseholder of nonstock corporation to restrain illegal action of corporation which may result in loss of property exceeding jurisdictional amount; McDaniel v. Traylor, 123 Fed. 339, holding Circuit Court has no jurisdiction of suit by heirs to set aside a number of judgments of different defendants against the estate, each for less than two thousand dollars; Eachus v. Hartwell, 112 Fed. 564, dismissing bill to restrain collection of street assessments amounting to less than two thousand dollars; Douglas County v. Stone, 110 Fed. 815, holding Circuit Court has no jurisdiction of suit to restrain collection of taxes to amount of sixteen hundred dollars assessed on realty under Virginia laws; dissenting opinion in Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 496, 47 L. Ed. 916, 23 Sup. Ct. 644, majority holding absence of averments showing jurisdictional amount in dispute not available on appeal to Supreme Court where omissions not objected to.

Distinguished in Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 39, 45 L. Ed. 414, 21 Sup. Ct. 255, holding Circuit Court has jurisdiction of suit for injunction against taxes above jurisdictional amount brought by railroad against revenue agent representing all parties; American Smelting etc. Co. v. Godfrey, 158 Fed. 229, 14 Ann. Cas. 8, 89 C. С. А. 139, in suit to enjoin nuisance amount in controversy is not damage resulting to complainant, but right of defendant to maintain same; Board of Trustees of Whitman College v. Berryman, 156 Fed. 114, in suit by educational corporation to restrain collection of taxes on property exempt under charter, amount in controversy is not tax levied, but value of exemption claimed; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 128 Fed. 4, 63 C. C. A. 1, holding amount in controversy in suit by railroad company against several land owners to enjoin interference with right of way is value of the easement; Southern Express Co. v. Ensley, 116 Fed. 759, holding Circuit Court has jurisdiction of suit by interstate express company to restrain enforcement of invalid license ordinance where value of right to operate exceeds two thousand dollars.

Jurisdiction of Federal Circuit Court as affected by amount in controversy in cases of joint parties plaintiff or defendant. Note, 5 Ann. Cas. 490.

161 U. S. 101, 40 L. Ed. 632, 16 Sup. Ct. 492, FISHBACK V. PACIFIC

EXPRESS CO.

Not cited.

161 U. S. 101-103, 40 L. Ed. 632, 16 Sup. Ct. 508, NEW ORLEANS FLOUR INSPECTORS v. GLOVER.

Appeal from decree enjoining inspection of four, under statute, will be dismissed on repeal of statute.

Approved in Ashon v. Conservation Commission, 229 U. S. 606, 57 L. Ed. 1349, 33 Sup. Ct. 775, dismissing appeal; Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Snow, 231 U. S. 211, 58 L. Ed. 188, 34 Sup. Ct. 104, holding act of June 24, 1912, permitting State statutes of limitation to apply to adverse possession of portions of right of way granted to railroads under act of July 1, 1862, did not have retroactive effect; Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U. S. 120, 46 L. Ed. 113, 22 Sup. Ct. 47, affirming dismissal of suit of express company to restrain collection of stamp tax on bill of lading under Act 1898 where Act 1901 exempted express companies therefrom; Doss v. Board of Commrs. of Mermentau Levee District, 117 La. 454, 41 South. 721, dismissing appeal without costs to either party from judgment for defendants in suit to restrain them from enforcing statute authorizing organization of levee district, where statute was repealed pending appeal; dissenting opinion in Snow v. Union Pac. R. Co., 55 Colo. 180, 133 Pac. 1039, majority holding decision denying plea of statute of limitations in action of ejectment, was correct when rendered, but act of 1912, enacted since decision, permitting State statutes of limitation to apply to adverse possession of portions of railroad right of way governed appeal.

161 U. S. 104-115, 40 L. Ed. 633, 16 Sup. Ct. 532, BEEBE v. UNITED STATES.

void.

Execution issued in violation of agreement for stay is voidable, not

Cited in Johnson v. Puritan Min. Co., 19 Mont. 47, 47 Pac. 341, arguendo.

Staying of executions otherwise than by statutory proceedings.
Note, 127 Am. St. Rep. 714.

Territorial extent of lien of execution. Note, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 198.
Priority of judgment over conveyance made after beginning of term.
Note, 38 L. R. A. 249..

Miscellaneous. Cited in In re Casey, 195 Fed. 329, where bankruptcy was adjudicated September, 1910, and order was made November, 1911, to apply for discharge, creditor's laches in failing until March, 1912, ene day before expiration of eighteen months' period in which application could be filed, to serve order to show cause why order extending time for filing application for discharge should not be vacated, precluded relief

161 U. S. 115-133, 40 L. Ed. 638, 16 Sup. Ct. 537, CAREY v. HOUSTON ETC. RY. CO.

Suit by stockholders to set aside Circuit Court's decree of foreclosure against corporation, is ancillary.

Approved in O'Connor v. O'Connor, 146 Fed. 997, and Campbell v. Golden Cycle Min. Co., 141 Fed. 613, 73 C. C. A. 260, both reaffirming rule; Bogert v. Southern Pac. Co., 226 Fed. 507, railroad in acquiring stock in other railroads by foreclosure suits took property subject to equitable rights of minority stockholders, and could not require them to pay pro rata share of claims of creditors of old company as, condition to their acquisition of pro rata share of stock in reorganized company; Bogert v. Southern Pac. Co., 215 Fed. 221, executor bringing stockholders' suit for accounting, though interested in prior litigation to which he was not party, is not estopped by laches where hearing on merits may be without prejudice to defendant; Craig v. Dorr, 145 Fed. 311, 76 C. C. A. 559, where both grantors and grantees were sued to set aside deeds and grantees filed cross-bill against grantors to recover purchase money, after decree by consent for complaints, cross-bill might be retained regardless of citizenship; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 721, 58 L. Ed. 1562, 34 Sup. Ct. 892, arguendo.

Distinguished in Sheffield etc. Ry. Co. v. Newman, 77 Fed. 793, 23 С. С. А. 459, arguendo.

Where Circuit Court's jurisdiction in foreclosure depends only on diverse citizenship, suit to vacate decree therein for fraud, is ancillary to main suit, and decree of Circuit Court of Appeals therein is final, and appeal therefrom does not lie to Supreme Court.

Approved in St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co., 217 U. S. 250, 54 L. Ed. 754, 30 Sup. Ct. 510, where jurisdiction of Federal court in original foreclosure suit was based solely upon diverse citizenship, appeal from judgment of Circuit Court of Appeals on petition to enforce rights granted by decree in intervention in such foreclosure suit does not lie to this court; Childers v. McClaughry, 216 U. S. 145, 54 L. Ed. 423, 30 Sup. Ct. 370, where District Court, upholding its jurisdiction, refuses release on habeas corpus, appeal does not lie to Supreme Court on ground that due process is denied by erroneous determination of issue of jurisdiction; Gableman v. Peoria etc. R. R. Co., 179 U. S. 342, 45 L. Ed. 224, 21 Sup. Ct. 174, holding appointment of receiver by Federal court under its general equity power does not make all actions against him actions arising under Federal laws; Mobile Transp. Co. v. Mobile, 199 U. S. 604, 50 L. Ed. 330, 26 Sup. Ct. 751, dismissing for want of jurisdiction; Dale v. Smith, 182 Fed. 363, fact that receivers of railroad were appointed by Federal court does not make suit against them on involving Federal question within meaning of Removal Act of 1888; Rochester German Ins. Co. v. Schmidt, 126 Fed. 1003, holding bill in Federal court to restrain suits against several insurers involving same defenses, and to adjust liabilities, is ancillary and not dependent upon citizenship; Everett v. Independent

School Dist., 102 Fed. 530, holding where Federal court has jurisdiction of subject matter and parties it may take jurisdiction of all ancillary bills regardless of citizenship; Rouse v. Hornsby, 161 U. S. 591, 40 L. Ed. 819, 16 Sup. Ct. 611, Murphy v. Colorado Pav. Co., 166 U. S. 719, 41 L. Ed. 1188, 17 Sup. Ct. 997, Darragh v. H. Welter Mfg. Co., 169 U. S. 735, 42 L. Ed. 1216, 18 Sup. Ct. 941, and Blythe Co. v. Blythe, 172 U. S. 644, 43 L. Ed. 1183, 19 Sup. Ct. 873, all following rule; Pope v. Louisville etc. Ry. Co., 173 U. S. 577, 43 L. Ed. 816, 19 Sup. Ct. 501, where receiver's suit was ancillary to receivership suit; Houston etc. R. R. v. Bath, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 697, 44 S. W. 596, 597, for facts.

Distinguished in G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Saalfield, 241 U. S. 31, 60 L. Ed. 873, whether District Court has jurisdiction over nonresident made party defendant by supplemental bill and substituted service because of his participation in defense of original action, may be reviewed on 'direct appeal to Supreme Court.

Intervention in Federal courts. Note, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1032, 1034. Miscellaneous. Cited in Boatmen's Bank v. Fritzlen, 135 Fed. 660, 68 С. С. А. 288, holder of senior mortgage never necessary party to suit to foreclose junior mortgage, because he has no right to redeem; Hendryx v. Perkins, 114 Fed. 808, 52 C. C. A. 435, holding bill to impeach prior decree for fraud is original and decree entered thereon is final and appealable.

161 U. S. 134-149, 40 L. Ed. 645, 16 Sup. Ct. 456, BANK OF COMMERCE v. TENNESSEE.

Tax of percentage on each share in lieu of other taxes limits tax on shares held by stockholders.

Approved in Mercantile Bank v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 169 (see 40 L. Ed. 658, 16 Sup. Ct. 464), arguendo.

Distinguished in Shelby Co. v. Union & Planter's Bank, 161 U. S. 152, 40 L. Ed. 652, 16 Sup. Ct. 559, but does not exempt capital stock, surplus or profits.

Supreme Court cannot review State decision against validity of acts of State assessors under statute.

Cited in State v. Bank of Commerce, 96 Tenn. 593, 594, 36 S. W. 719, 720, on motion to modify former decree.

Time and manner of raising and deciding questions in State court to obtain review in Federal Supreme Court. Note, 63 L. R. A. 54.

Charter provision for percentage tax on shares does not exempt surplus. Approved in Carson v. Three States Lumber Co., 149 Fed. 381, 383, 79 C. C. A. 197, fact that statement as to rights of parties is in opinion

XVII-31

of appellate court and not in decree, does not prevent it from being res adjudicata; Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis, 111 Fed. 574, 49 C. C. A. 455, holding provision in Tennessee bank charter for annual tax on each share of stock in lieu of all other taxes does not exempt bank from ad valorem tax on capital; State ex rel. Dillon v. Graybeal, 60 W. Va. 366, 55 S. E. 401, bank owning shares of capital stock of coal company assessed to such company is entitled to have value of shares deducted in ascertainment of value of its taxable property; Shelby Co. v. Union & Planters' Bank, 161 U. S. 150, 40 L. Ed. 652, 16 Sup. Ct. 558, such exemption does not extend to capital stock, surplus or profits; Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis, 101 Tenn. 166, 46 S. W. 560, whether tax on capital stock be ad valorem or privilege tax; Knoxville etc. R. R. Co. v. Harris, 99 Tenn. 700, 43 S. W. 119, exemption from ad valorem taxation does not include privilege tax.

Distinguished in Wright v. Georgia R. R. & Banking Co., 216 U: S. 429, 54 L. Ed. 555, 30 Sup. Ct. 242, exemption of capital of corporation from taxation continues though capital appreciates in value, and act of Georgia attempting to tax such increased value impairs obligation of contract; Pullen v. Corporation Commission, 152 N. C. 560, 68 S. E. 161, under provisions of act of 1909 so much of surplus of bank as is invested in nontaxable State asylum bonds, is exempt and must be deducted in assessing stock for taxation.

What is included in exemption of capital stock of corporation from taxation. Note, 4 Ann. Cas. 37.

Exemption from taxation cannot be implied.

Approved in Theological Seminary v. Illinois, 188 U. S. 672, 47 L. Ed. 648, 23 Sup. Ct. 387, affirming Illinois decision that charter exemption of property of whatever kind belonging to a theological seminary does not include property held as investment; Wells v. Mayor etc of Savannah, 181 U. S. 540, 45 L. Ed. 991, 21 Sup. Ct. 700, holding no contract of exemption of lots made out from ordinance, providing for ground rent but silent as to taxes, and deed providing that lots should bear common assessments; Succession of Kohn, 115 La. 76, 38 South. 900, exemptions from inheritance tax strictly construed; Knoxville etc. R. R. Co. v. Harris, 99 Tenn. 695, 43 S. W. 117, following rule; Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. State, 87 Md. 700, 67 Am. St. Rep. 377, 40 Atl. 1076, upholding tax on shareholders of company investing in patent rights; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Harris (Tenn. Ch. App.), 52 S. W. 753, payment of existing privilege tax does not prevent increase thereof; dissenting opinion in Hancock v. Singer Mfg. Co., 62 N. J. L. 348, 41 Atl. 854, majority holding exemption of shares exempts capital stock; dissenting opinion in Citizens' Bank v. Parker, 192 U. S. 87, 91, 48 L. Ed. 357, 358, 24 Sup. Ct. 187, 188, majority holding charter exemption of capital of bank includes exemption from tax for carrying on banking business.