196 U.S.

Argument for Appellees.

the aggregate amount of their claims was the amount in controversy. 1 Pomeroy Eq. Jur., 2d ed., § 269; Waterworks v. Youmans, L. R. 2 Ch. 8; Campbell v. Mackay, 1 Myl. & Cr. 603; Hardie v. Bulger, 66 Mississippi, 577; De Forrest v. Thompson, 40 Fed. Rep. 375; Brown v. Safe Dep. Co., 128 U. S. 403; N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 17 N. Y. 592.

Even if the transactions of which complaint is made were separate as to the several defendants, yet if it is alleged that all were part of the same fraudulent scheme or conspiracy, the bill is not multifarious. Duff v. Bank, 13 Fed. Rep. 65; Pullman v. Stebbins, 51 Fed. Rep. 10; Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U. S. 589; Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. 3; Clay v. Field, 138 U. S. 479; Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 369; Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 647; Illinois Central v. Coffery, 128 Fed. Rep. 770; Walter v. Railroad Co., 147 U. S. 370; Railroad Co. v. Walker, 148 U. S. 392; Fishback v. Telegraph Co., 161 U. S. 96; Bank v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319 and Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, distinguished.

Mr. N. W. Norton for appellees:

Where the bill is to relieve property of a lien or charge, the amount of the lien and not the value of the property is the test of jurisdiction. Ross v. Prentiss, 3 How. 771; Carne v. Russ, 152 U. S. 250; Farmers' Bank v. Hoop, 7 Pet. 168; Peyton v. Robertson, 9 Wheat. 527; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27.

Separate cases cannot be combined to make up the jurisdictional amount. Walter v. Railroad Co., 147 U. S. 370; Slaver v. Bigelow, 5 Wall. 208; Russell v. Stansell, 105 U. S. 303; Trust Co. v. Waterman, 106 U. S. 265; Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61; Clay v. Field, 138 U. S. 464.

The bill is against persons who must respond severally to the plaintiffs if at all and neither of the judgments is for as much as $2,000. The claims were all separate and cannot be united in one action without making it multifarious.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

If, within the meaning of the judiciary act of 1887, 1888, the value of the matter in dispute exceeded the sum of two thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs (25 Stat. 433), then there was no reason for dismissing the bill for want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court; for, diversity of citizenship was shown by the bill, and under the above act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470, it was competent for the Circuit Court, by a final decree, to remove any encumbrance or lien or cloud upon the title to real or personal property within the district, as against persons not inhabitants thereof and not found therein, or who did not voluntarily appear in the suit.

The lands of which Hiram Evans died possessed were of the alleged value of $16,000, and we assume that the plaintiffs jointly owned one undivided half of them. Was the value of the joint interest of the plaintiffs in the lands in question to be deemed the value of the matter in dispute, or was the Circuit Court without jurisdiction if no one of the alleged fraudulent claims held by the defendants exceeded two thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs?

Some light will be thrown upon this question by certain cases in which this court held it to be competent for a Circuit Court, in a suit in equity, to deprive parties of the benefit of a judgment or order fraudulently obtained by them in a state

court.

In Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. S. 640, 667, the question was as to the authority of a Circuit Court to set aside as fraudulent and void certain sales made by a testamentary executor under the orders of a Probate Court. Conceding that the administration of the estate there in question properly belonged to the Probate Court, and that in a general sense its decisions were conclusive, especially upon parties, Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for this court said: "But this is not universally true. The most solemn transactions and judgments may, at the

instance of the parties, be set aside or rendered inoperative for fraud. The fact of being a party does not estop a person from obtaining in a court of equity relief against fraud. It is generally parties that are the victims of fraud. The Court of Chancery is always open to hear complaints against it, whether committed in pais or in or by means of judicial proceedings. In such cases the court does not act as a court of review, nor does it inquire into any irregularities or errors of proceeding in another court; but it will scrutinize the conduct of the parties, and if it finds that they have been guilty of fraud in obtaining a judgment of decree, it will deprive them of the benefit of it, and of any inequitable advantage which they have derived under it."

In Arrowsmith v. Gleason, 129 U. S. 86, 98, the question was whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction by its decree to set aside a sale of an infant's lands fraudulently made by his guardian under authority derived from a Probate Court, and give such relief as would be consistent with equity. One of the grounds of demurrer to the bill in that case was that the Circuit Court had no authority to set aside and vacate the orders of the state court. This court said: "If by this is meant only that the Circuit Court cannot by its orders act directly upon the Probate Court, or that the Circuit Court cannot compel or require the Probate Court to set aside or vacate its own orders, the position of the defendants could not be disputed. But it does not follow that the right of Harmening, in his lifetime, or of his heirs since his death, to hold these lands, as against the plaintiff, cannot be questioned in a court of general equitable jurisdiction upon the ground of fraud. If the case made by the bill is clearly established by proof, it may be assumed that some state court, of superior jurisdiction and equity powers, and having before it all the parties interested, might afford the plaintiff relief of a substantial character. But whether that be so or not, it is difficult to perceive why the Circuit Court is not bound to give relief according to the recognized rules of equity, as administered in the courts of the

United States, the plaintiff being a citizen of Nevada, the defendants citizens of Ohio, and the value of the matter in dispute, exclusive of interest and costs, being in excess of the amount required for the original jurisdiction of such courts." "While there are general expressions in some cases apparently asserting a contrary doctrine, the later decisions of this court show that the proper Circuit Court of the United States may, without controlling, supervising, or annulling the proceedings of state courts, give such relief, in a case like the one before us, as is consistent with the principles of equity."

After citing the case of Johnson v. Waters, above, the court referred to Reigal v. Wood, 1 Johns Ch. 402, 406, in which Chancellor Kent said: "Relief is to be obtained not only against writings, deeds, and the most solemn assurances, but against judgments and decrees, if obtained by fraud and imposition." It also referred to Bowen v. Evans, 2 H. L. Cas. 257, 281, in which Lord Chancellor Cottenham said: "If a case of fraud be established, equity will set aside all transactions founded upon it, by whatever machinery they may have been effected, and notwithstanding any contrivances by which it may have been attempted to protect them. It is immaterial, therefore, whether such machinery and contrivances consisted of a decree of a court of equity, and a purchase under it, or of a judgment at law, or of other transactions between the actors in the fraud." The opinion of this court concluded: "These principles control the present case, which, although involving rights arising under judicial proceedings in another jurisdiction, is an original, independent suit for equitable relief between the parties, such relief being grounded upon a new state of facts, disclosing not only imposition upon a court of justice in procuring from it authority to sell an infant's lands when there was no necessity therefor, but actual fraud in the exercise, from time to time, of the authority so obtained. As this case is within the equity jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, as defined by the Constitution and laws of the United States, that court may, by its decree, lay hold of the parties and compe

them to do what, according to the principles of equity, they ought to do, thereby securing and establishing the rights of which the plaintiff is alleged to have been deprived by fraud and collusion."

In Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U. S. 589, 595, 596, it appeared that twenty-three judgments for different amounts were fraudulently procured to be rendered in a state court against a citizen of another State. Upon learning of the judgments the latter brought suit in one of the courts of Louisiana for a decree avoiding them as obtained upon false testimony, and thereafter filed a petition and bond for the removal of the case to the Circuit Court of the United States. The right of removal was denied, and the court dissolved the preliminary injunction which had been granted, and authorized Mayer, who had become the owner of the judgments, to proceed in their collection. Upon appeal to a higher state court, the original judgment was affirmed, and that judgment was brought here for review by writ of error. This court sustained the right of removal. After stating that the judgments aggregated more than three thousand dollars and were all held. by Mayer and against the plaintiff, we said: "Their validity depends upon the same facts. If she is entitled to relief against one of the judgments, she is entitled to relief against all of them. The cases in which they were rendered were, in effect, tried as one case, so far as she and Mayer were concerned; for the parties stipulated that the result in each one not tried should depend upon the result in the one tried. As all the cases not tried went to judgment in accordance with the result in the one tried; as the property of Mrs. Marshall [the plaintiff] was liable to be taken in execution on all the judgments; as the judgments were held in the same right; and as their validity depended upon the same facts, she was entitled, in order to avoid a multiplicity of actions, and to protect herself against the vexation and cost that would come from numerous executions and levies, to bring one suit for a decree finally determining the matter in dispute in all the cases.