ARGUED AND DETERMINED
and others v.
(Uircuit COU1·t, D. Colorado.
June 14, 1883.)
JURISDTCTION FEDERAL COURT-CITIZEN.
To give jurisdictiun to the flderat courts on the ground of all the plaintitfs who have an interest in the subject-matter must have a diibrent citizenship from the defcndants.
An averment that the action involves the" construction and consideration of the laws of the United on the subject of mines and mIning, und the validity and title to mining claims occurring and arising thereunder, " held insufficient to show a cause of action aris.ng under the laws of the United States. The complaint must state tlJere is a controversy between the p rties as to the meaning and eilect of those laws. It is not sufficient that the right to recover is lJased upon an act of congress.
Motion to Dismiss. A. Danford, for plaintiffs. D. T. Sapp, for defendants. HALLETT, J., (orally.) An action of :jeetment was brought by six persons against four to recover two mining claims. The title, as stated in the complaint, appears to be in four of the plaintiffs. F. E. Holland and B. "M. Hypes, two of the plaintiffs, own a erable interpst in the claims, and they are citizens of the state c.. Missouri. Two of the plaintiffs, J. W. West and W. M. B. War thington, own one-twelfth interest each. Charles A. Jones and Charles A. Daily are lessees of the plaintiffs. West and Worthington, Jones
From the Colorado Law Reporter.
and Daily, the two plaintiffs who own a twelfth interest of the claims, and the lessees, are citizens of this state; the defendants also are citzens of this state; and the question is whether the action can be maintained here by these plaintiffs against these defendants. On that the rule is that all of the plaintiffs who have any interest in the property must have a different citizenship from the defendants. Assuming that Jones and Daily, as lessees, have no substantial interest in the property, or, at least, that they need not be joined in this action, West and Worthington remain, having a twelfth interest each. They have no standing in this court, and cannot prosecute an action here against other citizens of the same state. The averment in the complaint that this is an action that involves the and consideration of the laws of the United States upon the subject. ofmilles and mining, and the validity and title to mining claims occurring' and arising thereunder," is not sufficient to show a cause of action arising under the laws of the United States. The question which arises under those laws, and the difference of opinion between parties as to the meaning and effect of those laws, is to be stated in the complaint to show such cause of action. The authol-it.y which we follow on that subject is Gold Washing If Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199. In that ease it was decided that there must be a controversy between parties as to the meaning and effect of a law of the United States. It is not sufficient that they base theii right to recovei' upon the acts of congress relating to mining claims, but there must be some dispute between the parties as to the construction of those laws. . The action is one which cannot be mainta;ned in this court, and will be dismissed, pursuant to the motion of the defendants 3ee Kerlin,g v. Cotzhausen, 16 FED. HEP. 705; State of Illinois v. Chieaqo, B. & Q. R. Co. ld. 706; Adams Exp. Co. v. DeuceI' & R. G. Ry. Co. ld. 712; MyeTs v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. ld. 292; Cruikshank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, rd. 888; Bates v.New Orleans, B. R. & V. R. Co. ld. Ellis v.1YfJrtolt, ld. il.
GOODYEAR and others v. SAWYER.
(Uircuit Court, W. D. Tennessee,
June 29, 1883.)
COSTs-EQUITY PRACTICE-BILL DIS\nSSED BY PLAIXTIFF-DOCKET WREX TAL.\BI.E-RE\'. ST. §§ 823, S2.!, AXD 983,
'Yhen a bill in equity is, after answer filed, by ne plaintiff, on his own application, e.ither generally or "without prejudice," the granting of such an order is a" final hearing " in the sense of Rev. tit. §§ 823 and E24, and the solicitor's d0cket fee of $20 is then taxable as part of the of the case, "recO\'eraule in favor of the prevailing party," in the sense of Hev. 61. § 983. This results from the general law of co,ts in courts of equity which is adopted by this act of congress, so far as relates to till! prindples go\'erning the court in the taxation of costs, as bet,,'een party and party.