The matter in dispute, on which the jurisdiction of this Court
depends, is the matter which is directly in dispute in the
particular cause in which the judgment or decree sought to be
reviewed has been rendered, and the Court is not permitted, for the
purpose of determining its sum or value, to estimate its collateral
effect in a subsequent suit between the same or other parties.
Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578,
affirmed.
This was a motion to dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion
of the Court.
Page 117 U. S. 515
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit, at the time of the decree appealed from, was by
Alexander Bruce, a citizen of Illinois, and William Shepard, a
citizen of Massachusetts, against the Manchester and Keene
Railroad, a New Hampshire corporation, to collect interest due on
certain bonds of the railroad by the foreclosure of a mortgage made
to trustees to secure a series of bonds amounting in the aggregate
to $500,000. There were other parties, both plaintiff and
defendant, when the suit was begun, but a discontinuance was
entered before the decree as to all but these. The bill was filed
in behalf of the complainants and all other like creditors, not
citizens of New Hampshire, who might come in and contribute to the
expenses, but no such creditors had come in or connected themselves
with the suit in any way at the time of the decree. The railroad
filed an answer, and upon final hearing, the bill was dismissed.
The record shows that the complainant Bruce owned bonds for $7,500,
on which interest was past due and unpaid to the amount of not more
than $3,000, and Shepard $1,000 of bonds, on which not more than
$400 of interest was due. After the bill was dismissed, the
complainants, Bruce and Shepard, took a joint appeal, which the
railroad now moves to dismiss because the value of the matter in
dispute does not exceed $5,000.
This motion must be granted. The case comes clearly within the
rule established in
Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U.
S. 578, in which it was decided that the matter in
dispute, on which our jurisdiction depends, is "the matter which is
directly in dispute in the particular cause in which the judgment
or decree sought to be reviewed has been rendered," and that we are
not permitted, "for the purpose of determining its sum or value, to
estimate its collateral effect in a subsequent suit between the
same or other parties." Although the principal
Page 117 U. S. 516
of the bonds owned by one of the complainants exceeds $5,000,
the suit is brought to recover only the interest, which is less.
These complainants are in no way authorized to represent the other
bondholders. They sued for themselves and all others in like
situation who might join with them, but no one saw fit to join.
They were allowed to proceed alone, and the payment to them of
their interest would have been a bar to the further prosecution of
the suit. So if a decree had been rendered in their favor without
others joining in the suit, either by petition or by proof before a
master or otherwise, it would have been satisfied by the payment of
the amount found due to them, and no further proceedings could
thereafter be had. It is true, if such a payment should not be made
and a resort to a sale of the mortgaged property should be
necessary to collect what was due to them, the other bondholders
would have an interest in the proceeds and could be called in
before a master for that purpose, but that would be only one of the
collateral or indirect effects of the decree, not to be considered
in determining our jurisdiction. On the case as it stood when the
bill was dismissed, the only matter directly involved was the right
of Bruce and Shepard to have the mortgaged property sold to pay the
several amounts due them respectively for interest on their bonds.
This is all that has been denied. It follows that the matter in
dispute here is less than our jurisdictional limit.
Dismissed.