BENNETT· :t1. DEVINB.
(O£rcu1.t Court, S. D. Iowa, W. D. April 22, 1891.)
REMOVAL OJ!' CAUSES-JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT-COUNTER-CLA.IM.
Where the amount claimed in a petition is not suflicient to allow the cause to be removed to a federal court, damages claimed in a counter-claim cannot be added thereto, 80 8S to make out the jurisdictional amount. Though the amount of the counter-claim is of itself equal to the jurisdictional amount, defendant, having as to such claim voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction of the state court, cannot claim the right of removal.
Motion to Remand. P. P. Kelly and F. W. MiUer, for plaintiff. Flickinger Bro8. and Shirley Gilliland, for defendant. SHIRAS. J. The plaintiff, a citizen of Iowa, brought this action in the district court of Mills county, Iowa, to recover damages in the sum of $1,950 against the defendant, a citizen of the state of Ohio. The defendant, appearing in the action, filed a counter-claim, seeking to recover damages against the plaintiff in the sum of $3,000, and then filed a petition in this court, asking a removal of the cause on the ground of local prejudice, the petition averring on its face that the amount in controversywas the sum of $4,950. The order of removal was granted, and, the transcript having been filed, the plaintiff moves for an order remanding the cause. From the transcript it now appears that the averments in the petition for removal, that the amount involved in the controversywas $4,950, can only be sustained by adding the sums claimed in the original petition and in the counter-claim. When the action was first brought it was based upon a. cause of action for $1,950. This controversy has not been changed, and it still remains a controversy involving only $1,950, and no more; and hence this court cannot take ju'tisdiction thereof. Defendant has an independent and distinct cause of action, and the damages therein claimed canpot be added to the amount involved in the cause of action declared on by plaintiff in order to make 91.1f the jurisdictionlll amount. The case cannot, therefore, be properly removed by reason of the controversy presented in the action as it stood when the original petition was filed. So far as the counter-claim is concerned, the party seeking the removal is the plaintiff therein, and the right of removal does not exist in favor of a plaintiff or party who has voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction of the IItate court. The case isremanded at the costs of the defendant. v,45F.no.11-45
& RIVElI.i hlP. Co. v.
(Otrcuit Oourt, W. D. Wisconsin. MarQ4 11,1891.)
, ,An aotion under St. Wis. § 8186, enlarging the equitE\bleremedies of quieting title , clouds, may' be brought in a federal court. The statute of limitations does not in the case ofa tax-deed preclude inquiry as , to, whether a tax was 'levied, or, if levied, whether by competent authority, or 'Whether the tax has been' paid;, bu,t, barring theil'e questions, the recording of a tax-deed valid on its face prevents inquiry into the, validity of the deed, or the regulating of the tax proceedings,a'fter the lapse of the statutory period of limitations.
FEDERAL COURTS-JURISDIOTION-STATIll STATUTES.,
TAXATION-SALE IN SEPARATE TRAOTS.
Where a quarter section of land Is owned by one person, the assessment and Bale thereof as a whole is not in violation of a statutory provision that land shall be assessed and sold in separate tracts.
REGISTRATION OJ!' DEEDS-INDEX.
Rev. St. Wis. 1858, c. 18, § 142, provides that every register of deeds shall keep a. general index, each page of whicb Shall be divided into eight columns, with certain: hea4s to the columns. Section 148 provides .that the register shall make correctentries of every instrument' received for record under the respective and ap, propriate heads, ,and the same shall be considered as reoorded at the time so .noted. Held that, though an index was imperfeot, still, where there was nothing misleading about it, and it furnished aU the information that an ordinarily prudent man : would want to send him to the full record of the deed, it was suffioient.
InEquity. Pinney<!c Sanborn I (.F. W. Downer, Jr., of counsel,) for complainant. W. ". Bailey, (Silverthorn, Hurley, Ryan &; Jones, of counsel,) for defendant.
BUNN, J. This suit in equity is brought under a provision of the ute of Wisconsin, (section 3186,) the complainant being in possession of land, to bar the title oithe former owner,and compel him to release. Theprovlsion is this: person having the possession and legal title to land may institute an action ,against any other persoll setting upa claim> thereto, and, if the J>lailltiff shall be able to his title to such land, t,he defendant shall be adjudged to release to the; plaintiff all claim thereto, and to pay the costs of such action,unless the defendant shall, by answer, disclaim all title to such land, and give a release thereof to the plaintiff, in which case he shall recover costs, unless the court shaH otherwise order. It shall be sufficient to aver in the complaint in such action the nature and extent of the plaintiff's estate in sucb land, describing it accurately as may be, and that he is in tbElreof, and. that the makes some claim thereto, and to judgment that the plaint1tT:s claim be ,established against any claim of the detEmdltnt, and' that he be forever barred against having or claiming , any right or title to the land adverse to the plaintiff," There can be no doubt that this statute constitutes a considerable eolargement of the ordinary equitable action to quiet title to land and to remove a cloud; and it is seriously contended by the defendant that the remedy so provided cannot be available to suitors in these courts, being an innovation upon the settled rules of equity jurisdiction in such cases. But this contention can hardly be sustained. It is well enough