Opinion of the Court.

with his consent, is used in order that the Circuit Court of the United States may acquire jurisdiction to render judgment for the amount of all the coupons in suit, a large part of which are really owned by citizens of Colorado, who, as between themselves and the Board of Commissioners of Lake County, could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal court, but must have sued, if they sued at all, in one of the courts of Colorado. It is true that some of the coupons in suit are owned by corporations of New Hampshire, who could themselves have sued in the Circuit Court of the United States. But if part of the coupons in question could not by reason of the citizenship of the owners have been sued on in that court, except by uniting the causes of action arising thereon with causes of action upon coupons owned by persons or corporations who might have sued in the Circuit Court of the United States, and if all the causes of action were thus united for the collusive purpose of making a 'case' cognizable by the Federal court as to every issue made by it, then the act of 1875 must be held to apply, and the trial court, on its own motion, should have dismissed the case without considering the merits."

Does the record show that the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction of some of the causes of action embraced by the complaint? We say "record," because this court will not reverse a judgment for want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court, if its jurisdiction sufficiently appears either from the pleadings or from the record. Railway Company v. Ramsey, 22 Wall. 322; Briges v. Sperry, 95 U. S. 401; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646, 648. The complaint here shows diverse citizenship, as between the plaintiff and the defendant city, but the record reveals the fact that the plaintiff included in his suit a large number of claims owned by citizens of States other than California, but which, by reason of their small amount, could not have been sued on separately in the Circuit Court by the persons or corporations, the real owners, who put them in plaintiff's hands for collection.

Of this there can be no doubt. The entire issue of refunding bonds was 360, of $1000 each, numbered consecutively from one to three hundred and sixty. They were of the character

Opinion of the Court.

known as 66 serials," each series consisting of nine bonds. The first series included the bonds numbered from one to nine, both inclusive, and each succeeding series included the nine bonds numbered consecutively after those embraced in the next preceding series. The bonds of the first series fell due April 15, 1895, and were the only bonds that had become due when the present action was brought. The remaining series were made payable in consecutive order on the 15th day of April in each succeeding calendar year thereafter until and including the year 1934. Now, this suit is for the amount due on nine of the forty bonds of $1000 each, constituting the first series, and falling due April 16, 1895, and two hundred and eighty-two coupons of $50 each, all which coupons, above the coupon of bond No. 40 of the first series, were attached to bonds that were not yet due. No owner of a $50 coupon attached to a bond not due could have sued upon it in the Circuit Court. Each coupon of that amount was a complete instrument, capable of supporting a separate action, in the proper forum, without reference to the maturity or ownership of the bonds to which they were attached. Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U. S. 668, and authorities there cited; Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578. No owner of coupons, aggregating less than $2000, could have sued in the Circuit Court by reason of the bonds to which they were attached (but which were not due) exceeding the jurisdictional amount. But when the several owners of $50 coupons which were due, but which coupons were attached to bonds not due, put them all in the hands of the plaintiff for collection, the amount appeared to be sufficient for purposes of jurisdiction. Thus a case was made by which the Circuit Court was led to take cognizance of certain claims too small for its jurisdiction if they had been severally sued on by the real owners, although there was jurisdiction as to the parties who owned eight of the nine bonds in suit. It also appears that one of the transferrers of the plaintiff owned only one bond of a $1000. The value of the matter in dispute, as to him, was only the amount of that bond and one coupon of $50.

We adjudge that, as the plaintiff does not own the bonds or coupons in suit, but holds them for collection only, the Circuit

Counsel for Parties.

Court was without jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim or claims, whether bonds or coupons, held by a single person, firm or corporation against the city and which, considered apart from the claim or claims of other owners, could not have been sued on by the real owner by reason of the insufficiency of the amount of such claim or claims.

The specifications of error assigned cover eighty pages of the elaborate brief of counsel for the city. They present many minor questions that are not discussed in this opinion. But what has been said embraces every point of substance or that requires consideration and disposes of the case upon its real merits.

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed, with directions to the Circuit Court to set aside its judgment and enter such judgment as may be in conformity with this opinion.

CLARK v. TITUSVILLE.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 91. Argued and submitted January 14, 1902.-Decided March 3, 1902.

The city government of Titusville, in Pennsylvania, imposed a license tax upon persons carrying on certain occupations in that city. This court holds that it was a tax on the privilege of doing business, regulated by the amount of the sales, and was not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

THE case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Eugene Mackey for plaintiff in error.

Mr. George Frank Brown for defendant in error, submitted on his brief.

Opinion of the Court.

MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is here on error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania. It involves the constitutionality of an ordinance of the city of Titusville imposing a license tax upon the merchants of the city. The particular contention is that the ordinance violates the equality prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in that it divides the merchants into arbitrary classes.

The trial court sustained the ordinance, and its judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court upon the opinion delivered by the trial court.

The case was submitted upon a case stated in the nature of a special verdict, from which it appeared that the city was duly incorporated, and passed on June 25, 1888, the ordinance complained of. The provisions of the ordinance were set out, and it was stipulated that if the court should be of the opinion that the ordinance was valid a fine should be entered against the defendant (plaintiff in error) for the total of the taxes prescribed.

The ordinance imposes a license tax upon persons who carry on certain occupations in the city. Persons in different occupations pay different amounts, and persons in the same occupation are classified by maximum and minimum amount of sales. For instance, persons dealing in merchandise are classified as follows, and we quote from the opinion of the trial court:

It is with this classification that we have immediate concern, because the plaintiff is a retail grocer. He was assessed in the sixth class in 1895, and in the seventh class in 1896.

The objection that plaintiff makes to the ordinance is, that it classifies by amount or value with the result (1) that the lowest amount or value of property of a class "is required to pay the same amount of taxes with the highest amount or value of property therein;" (2) that the differences are not in kind but only in amount, or value, and that the taxes decrease in rate or ratio as the value of the class increases; (3) that the so-called classes are subdivisions of a class, and taxes are imposed upon such subdivisions without regard to a common ratio, either as between the several subdivisions, or as between the members of each of the subdivisions. These objections are but the expression of the effect of classification by amount, and have been made before and considered before by this court, and the judgment has been adverse to the contention of plaintiff in error. We do not think that it is necessary to review the cases or enter again into the reasoning upon which they were based.

Classification by amount came up for consideration and decision in Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U. S. 283, and was sustained. That case, plaintiff in error recognizes, may be urged against his contention and attempts to limit its decision to the power of a State over inheritances, and to explain by that power not only the taxes imposed, but the dis