dissenting, in Ex parte Young.53 The conclusion of the court is that a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an unconstitutional state statute is not against the state, but one against an individual wrongdoer. If a state officer who has no connection with the enforcement of a state statute is sued, the action is against the state, and unauthorized.54 An action against a state railroad commission, to restrain the enforcement of rates, is not one against the state; and this is true of other administrative bodies.55

110. Amount in controversy.-In certain cases suit in the district court is authorized only where more than $3,000 is involved, excluding interest and costs. The question of the value in dispute is a quasijurisdictional one, so that if the judgment record, or strict record, does not show this fact the judgment is nevertheless good on collateral attack, but not on appeal or writ of error.56 The presumption of regularity applying to superior courts supplies the defect. The classes of suits depending on the sum in dispute are particularly defined in the judicial code.58 The term matter in controversy refers to the value of the claim presented by the record for decision, and not to neighborhood disputes, or the intentions or expectations of the parties.59 Claims for liquidated damages depend on the contract or

57

53 209 U. S. 123, 150, 183, 28 Sup. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714.

54 Same; Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 19 Sup. Ct. 269, 43 L. Ed. 535. 55 Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 362, 14 Sup. Ct. 1047, 38 L. Ed. 1014.

56 § 4.

57 Same.

58 Judicial Code, § 24.

59 Kanouse v. Martin, 15 How. 198 (U. S.), 14 L. Ed. 660.

writing fixing them,60 and for unliquidated damages on the amount claimed by plaintiff in his petition, declaration or complaint,1 unless the damages are fraudulently alleged to exceed $3,000.62 Thus a claim for injury, although really more than $3,000, may be sued in the state court for that sum or less, and cannot be removed to the federal court even though larger damages are given, unless plaintiff amends his pleading to demand a larger sum. Where the complaint claims the necessary amount, a recovery less than $3,000 does not affect the jurisdiction."4 When persons having common and undivided interests join as plaintiffs, their individual interests are added in order to determine the sum in dispute.65 But the rule is otherwise when the interests are distinct, and the parties unite for convenience. Where the subject matter is not capable of being valued in money, as in habeas corpus, divorce, mandamus or prohibition, there is no jurisdiction unless authorized on other grounds, as, that the proceeding is ancillary, or the statute authorizes it without regard to the sum in dispute.67

111. Ancillary jurisdiction. — The incidental power to issue writs in aid of a jurisdiction already

60 Building & Loan Ass'n. v. Price, 169 U. S. 45, 18 Sup. Ct. 251, 42 L. Ed. 655.

61 Smithers v. Smith, 204 U. S. 632, 27 Sup. Ct. 297, 51 L. Ed. 656. 62 Same.

63 Northern P. R. Co. v. Austin, 135 U. S. 315, 10 Sup. Ct. 758, 34 L. Ed. 218.

64 Dickinson v. Union, etc., Co., 64 Fed. 895.

65 Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379, 21 Sup. Ct. 402, 45 L. Ed. 583.

66 Walter v. N. E. R. Co., 147 U. S. 370, 13 Sup. Ct. 348, 37 L. Ed. 206.

67 De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U. S. 303, 26 Sup. Ct. 485, 50 L. Ed. 765,

attached has been discussed.68 Ancillary suits are those brought, in the court entertaining the original suit, to protect rights adjudged in the latter in respect to the subject matter here in litigation, in order to give effect to the decree, or some interlocutory order.69 Such ancillary suits may be brought regardless of the citizenship of the parties or value in dispute. 70 Instances of such actions are cross bills,"1 to enjoin judgments,72 to enforce judgments,78 to quiet a title determined by a federal judgment, to obtain relief from a wrongful seizure under federal process, and suits in respect to property in the custody of the court.76 Even an ancillary suit against a state may be brought to make effective a decree in a former suit against the same state. The eleventh amendment does not apply."

75

Territorial and Insular Courts.

74

112. Nature and organization of territorial courts. Territorial courts in the federal system are sui generis. Though created by Congress, they are not established, or their jurisdiction controlled, by the Constitution, vesting the judicial power in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as Congress

68 § 23.

69 Raphael v. Trask, 194 U. S. 272, 24 Sup. Ct. 647, 48 L. Ed. 973. 70 Lacassagne v. Chapuis, 144 U. S. 119, 12 Sup. Ct. 659, 36 L. Ed. 268. 71 Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327 (U. S.), 19 L. Ed. 935.

72 Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450 (U. S.), 16 L. Ed. 749.

73 Railroad Companies v. Chamberlain, 6 Wall. 748 (U. S.), 18 L. Ed. 859.

74 Root v. Woolworth, 150 U. S. 401, 14 Sup. Ct. 136, 37 L. Ed. 1123. 75 Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U. S. 131, 8 Sup. Ct. 379, 31 L. Ed. 374.

76 Rouse v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47, 15 Sup. Ct. 266, 39 L. Ed. 341.

77 Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 200 U. S. 273, 26 Sup. Ct. 252, 50 L. Ed. 477.

may create. In their creation and powers they depend on the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or by virtue of that clause of the Constitution which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.78 In establishing the Territory of Florida Congress created a territorial legislature, and provided that its power should extend to all rightful subjects of legislation. That legislature created two superior courts, and vested them with admiralty jurisdiction. In one of them a ship's cargo was seized and sold for salvage claims. The territorial act of Congress also purported to invest the territorial superior courts with jurisdiction of cases arising under the laws of the United States. By a suit in the Florida district court the sale of the cargo under the decree of the superior court was attacked as without jurisdiction, thus raising the question whether Congress could vest admiralty jurisdiction in a territorial court, and whether it had done so by providing that the territorial superior court should have jurisdiction of cases arising under the laws of the United States. In other words, "Does the Constitution follow the flag," and does the acquisition of territory by the United States make such territory an integral part thereof, so that Congress might vest admiralty jurisdiction in its courts? It was held that admiralty jurisdiction in the states can be exercised only in the federal district courts, but in the territories in such courts as Congress may establish, or such as the territorial leg

78 American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511 (U. S.), 7 L. Ed. 242.

islature may lawfully create; and that admiralty cases do not arise under federal laws, but long antedate them. Therefore the decree of sale in the territorial court was valid.79 Territorial judges provided for by acts of Congress may be removed by the President, but federal judges can only be removed by impeachment of the House and trial by the Senate. of the United States.80 Congress may create a territorial district court, and give it the powers of a state court and of a federal district court, as in Alaska.8

81

Organization. Congress has uniformly provided for a four years' term for territorial district judges, which it could not do if they were federal judges, who under the Constitution hold their offices during good behavior.82 Judges of the supreme courts of the territories are usually designated in like manner, as in the case of Hawaii,83 which has also two district court judges, appointed by the President for six years; 84 but such supreme and district judges might be chosen by the people if Congress so enact.85 Their practice is not governed by the federal statutes, but by the territorial legislatures, and their own rules.86 A distinction has been made between "territory of the United States" and "territory belonging to the United States." Alaska is territory of the United

79 American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511 (U. S.), 7 L. Ed. 242. 80 McAllister v. United States, 141 U. S. 174, 11 Sup. Ct. 949, 35 L. Ed. 693.

81 Same; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244.

82 See case in note 80.

83 Hawaiian Code, § 82, 31 Stats. at Large, p. 157.

84 Hawaiian Code, § 86, 35 Stats. at Large, p. 838.

85 See case in note 80.

86 Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall. 648 (U. S.), 21 L. Ed. 966.