It is clearly shown also that Williams and Tobey were
collusively joined as plaintiffs to create a case cognizable in the
circuit court, for when the suit was begun, the amount
Page 104 U. S. 212
due them respectively was less than $500. Neither one of them
could then have sued alone in the courts of the United States,
because the value of the matter in dispute was not sufficient.
Since the judgment below was rendered, the amount due Williams
and Tobey respectively has, by reason of the accumulation of
interest, exceeded $500. The citizenship of Tobey is not disclosed
by the record. Whether he can sue in the courts of the United
States we do not know. Williams can sue at this time if he still
continues to be a citizen of some state other than Michigan, but
without a false averment in his pleadings, he could not have done
so when this suit was begun. If he had in his pleadings falsely
overstated the amount of his claim, he could not, when his judgment
was obtained, have recovered costs, and at the discretion of the
court might have been adjudged to pay costs.
Gordon v.
Longest, 16 Pet. 97. He was as much guilty of
collusion as the other parties, and is no more entitled to
consideration here than they are.
Inasmuch, therefore, as it was the duty of the circuit court, on
its own motion, as soon as the evidence was in and the collusive
character of the case shown, to stop all further proceedings and
dismiss the suit, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded
with instructions to dismiss the suit at the costs of the plaintiff
in error, because it did not really and substantially involve a
dispute or controversy within the jurisdiction of that court,
leaving the parties in interest to such remedies as they may each
be entitled to for the recovery of any amount that may be due them
respectively on the bonds they severally own. In this connection,
we deem it proper to say that this provision of the act of 1875 is
a salutary one, and that it is the duty of the circuit courts to
exercise their power under it in proper cases. If they improperly
dismiss a cause, their action in that behalf is expressly made
reviewable here. Whether, if a defendant allows a case to go on
until judgment has been rendered against him, he can take advantage
of the objection on appeal or writ of error we need not now decide.
That would be a different case from this. Here, the party guilty of
the collusion asks relief from a judgment against
Page 104 U. S. 213
himself. In such a case, we deem it our duty to stop the suit
just where it should have been stopped in the court below and remit
the parties to their original rights.
Judgment reversed.