8REENE COUNTY V. KORTRECHT.
GREENE OOUNTY v. KORTREOHT. (01rcult Court of Appeals, Fifth Oircuit. May 25, 1897.)
UNITED STATES COURTS-JURiSDICTION-AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.
In an action on negotiable bonds which have matured, together with the coupons, neither the interest on the bonds after maturity, nor the interest on the coupons after their maturity, constitutes a part of the matter in dispute, in determining the jurisdiction .of the circuit court, where the controversy arises between citizens of different states.
In Error to the Circuit' Court of the United States for the Northern District of Allibama: ' A., G. Smith, James Weatherly, H. C. Tompkins, and Ed. de Graffenreid, for plaintiff ineliror. E. II. allq 8. D. Weakley, for defendant in error. Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and NEWMAN,Distr,ict Judge. McCORMICK, Circuit Judge. This is an action of debt on nego· tiable bonds' and the coupons thereto attached. The declaration counts separately on two bonds, each for the sum of $500, which matured January 1, 1890. It also counts separately on 17 coupons attached, to each bond, each for the sum of $20, making 34 coupons in all declared upon, of the aggregate face value of $680. The recoverysought is for this principal debt and interest on the bonds from their maturity, and on each of the 34 coupons from the date of their respective maturity. , The circuit courts of the United States haV'ejurisdiction concurrent ,with the courts of ijle several in all suite; of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, in which there shall be a controversybetween citizePlil of different states, in which the matter in dispute exchisive of interest and costs, the sum or value of , Ooupons ollnegotiable bonds interest on the bond accruing and made payable at stated "times the maturity of the bolld::Ea,ch couJ?On is an independent contract stipulating for the of the inlilta,llIrient of }nterest at the time nan;ted in each, respettively; and, after its· maturity, bears interest, will suppert an action, and is subject to the statute of limitations, as a separable contract. The interest on the bonds accruing after maturity, and the interest on each,"4J:Qupon accf\1ingafter its an accessor.y relation to the principal. of the'Dond and of ea.ch coupon, respectively, and by the terms df the statute is excluded from the calculation of the amount declared on, detepmining the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Edwards v. Bates Co., 163 U. S. 269, 16 Sup. Ct. .!)67; Bro."\Vn y. Web,ster,,156 U. S. 328, 15Sup.. Ot. 377; Nesbit v. Riverside,Independent Dist., 144 U. S. 610, Sup. Ct. 746; Amy v. Dubuque j 98 U. 8.470; Aurora' v.West,7 Wall. 82. From the foregOing"statemel1t .of,tlJecase, and the rule as deduced froni the authorities cited, it is plain that the circuitc6url did not ha'veiuris.
diction of this case. The judgment of the circuit court is therefore reversed, and the cause'isremauded with directions to dismiss the plaintiff's without prejudice.
LANSING & CO. v. RESING.
(OlrcuIt Court of .Appeals, Seventh CIrcuit. May 28, 1897.) No. 870.
APPEAL-DISMISSAL-INJUNCTION AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICER.
appellee has been succeeded in office by another.
be dismissed without costs to either party, where, pendIng the appeal, the
.An appeal from an· order denying an injunction agaInst a postmaster will
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. This wp.s a bill in equity by Lansing & Co., an Illinois corporation, dealing in grain, provisions, and other commodities, against Washington Hesing, who at the time the suit was instituted was postmaster of the city of Chicago, to enjoin him from withholding mail addressed to complainant, and from returning such mail matter to the senders thereof with the word "Fraudulent" marked on the outside thereof. The defendant, in his answer, justified his acts under an order known as a "fraud order," made by the postmaster general of the United States., Complainant having moved ,for an injunction pendente lite, the same was denied by the court, and it thereupon took this appeal. Pending the appeal the defendant resigned his office, and a successor was appointed. Henry Stephen, for appellant. John C. Black, for appellee: Before WOODS, JENKINS, and SHOWALTER, Circuit Judges. PER CUlUAM. This appeal is from an order denying an injunction against the appellee as postmaster at Chicago. Mter the appeal was taken, the appellee resigned the office, and his successor has been appointed. On the authority of U. S. V. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 604, Secretary v. McGarrahan, 9 Wall. 298, and U. S. v. Lochren, 164 U. S. 701, 17 Sup'. at. 1001, the appeal is dismis!;le4, without costs to either party.
SMITR v. WESTElRN UNION TEL. 00.
(Circuit Court, D. Indiana.
CosTl-ATTORNlllY'& DOCKET FEE.
Mai 8, l89101
An attorney's docket fee will not be allowed upon an order to remand te a state court, 'eIther under Rev. St. § 824, authorizing such an allowance where there has been a "final hearing" inequity, nor under the act of March I, 1875, the court, JD remandin.i a case, to "make such order u to cos1:$ all, shall be just."