a right of appeal, but not in the appellate court.2 When the jurisdiction of a court is limited in amount, the limitation applies to the court when sitting in equity.3 (b) Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction.-The Supreme Court of the United States has appellate jurisdiction in civil matters only when "the matter in dispute" exceeds a certain sum.4 The bring the case within the jurisdiction of the court. Converse v. Damariscotta Bank, 15 Me. 431; Hart v. Waitt, 3 Allen (85 Mass.) 532. 1. The ad damnum clause has been increased in the trial court, so as to give a right of appeal. Danielson v. Andrews, 1 Pick. (18 Mass.) 156; Taylor v. Jones, 42 N. H. 25. 2. The sum claimed cannot be amended in the appellate court so as to give the court below jurisdiction. Ladd v. Kimball,12 Gray (Mass.) 139; McQuade v. O'Neil, 15 Gray (Mass.) 52. See Fowler v. Bishop, 32 Conn. 199. The ad damnum clause determines right of appeal or writ of error. Not an erroneous judgment in excess thereof. Hemmenway et al. v. Hickes et al., 4 Pick. (21 Mass.) 497. Nor the demand set out in the pleadings. Chamberlain v. Cochran, 8 Pick. (25 Mass.) 522. 3. When the jurisdiction of a court is limited in amount, the limitation applies to the court when sitting in equity as well as when acting as a common law court. Gamber v. Holben, 5 Mich. 331. It has, however, been held in Alabama that a bill in equity is not demurrable because it fails to show affirmatively that the amount in controversy is within the jurisdiction of the court. If it is not, the objection must be raised by plea or answer. Abraham v. Hall, 59 Ala. 386. 4. Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the United States may review the judgments and decrees of the United States circuit courts only when "the matter in dispute shall exceed the sum or value of" $2,000, under the judiciary act of 1789, U. S. Stat. at Large, vol. 1, p. 13; of $5,000, under the act of February 16th, 1875, U. S. Stat. at Large, vol. 18, p. 315. See United States v. Davis, 131 U. S. 36. By the recent act of congress of March 2nd, 1889, ch. 382, § 5, it is provided that in proceedings against common carriers to enforce obedience to orders, etc., of the interstate commerce commission an appeal will lie from the circuit court to the Supreme Court of the United States "when the subject in dispute shall be of the value of $2,000 or more." By 699 of the Revised Statutes it is provided that these limitations do not apply to cases touching patent rights or copy rights, to civil actions to enforce the revenue laws, to civil actions against revenue officers for acts done in their official capacity, to cases brought on account of the deprivation of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution, and to actions brought for injuries caused by acts done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in § 1980, title Civil Rights. These limitations do not apply to cases arising under the "act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights," passed March 1st, 1875, nor to certain habeas corpus cases under the act of March 3rd, 1885, ch. 353; 23 U. S. Stat. at Large, 437, amendatory of §§ 763, 764 of the Revised Statutes. And it has been very recently provided by the act of congress of February 25th, 1889, ch. 236, § 1, "that, in all cases where a final judgment or decree shall be rendered in a circuit court of the United States, in which there shall have been a question involving the jurisdiction of the court, the party against whom the judgment or decree is rendered shall be entitled to an appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States to review such judgment or decree without reference to the amount of the same, but in cases where the decree or judgment does not exceed the sum of $5,000, the supreme court shall not review any question raised upon the record except such question of jurisdiction." In like manner, plaintiffs in United States court of claims may appeal to the United States supreme court in cases where "the amount in controversy exceeds $3,000," while an appeal in behalf of the United States may be taken from said court irrespective of the amount involved. Rev. Stat. U. S., § 707. The limitation in cases of appeals from or writs of error to the supreme "matter in dispute" must have a pecuniary value. The value must appear in the record or be proved.2 The amount claimed in the court below is conclusive; it cannot be increased in the court of the District of Columbia was $2,500 under the act of February 25th, 1879, U. S. Stat. at Large, vol. 20, p. 321, but is now $5,000, under the act of March 3rd, 1885, U. S. Stat. at Large, vol. 23, p. 443. Except in cases involv ing the validity of "any patent or copy right" or the validity of "a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States," in which cases an appeal or writ of error lies without regard to the amount in controversy. From the territorial courts appeals were originally allowed in cases where the amount in controversy exceeded $1,000. Rev. Stat. U. S., § 702; but this sum is now $5,000. Act of March 3rd, 1885, U. S. Stat. at Large, vol. 23, p. 443. However, in the case of the Indian Territory, the act of March 1st, 1889, ch. 333, establishing a United States court in said territory provides for appeals and writs of error where the amount exceeds $1,000. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States in cases brought from the State courts arising under the constitution, laws and treaties of the Union, is not limited by the value of the matter in dispute. Buel v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 312. See a note on this subject in Kent's Commentaries (Lacy's ed.), vol. 1, pp. 316-321. 1. Matter in Dispute.-The matter in dispute under the above limitations must be money, or some right the value of which can be calculated in money. Carter v. Cutting, 8 Cranch (U. S.) 251; Lee v. Lee, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 44; Pratt v. Fitzhugh, 1 Black (U. S.) 271. Controversies, therefore, respecting the custody or guardianship of children may not be reviewed. Ritchie v. Manro, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 243; Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. (U. S.) 103; DeKrafft v. Barney, 2 Black (U. S.) 704. A controversy as to the validity of certain proceedings for the removal of the seat of government of a territory is not reviewable. Potts v. Chumasero, 92 U. S. 358. Where national bank officers are required by State statute to report the bank's assets, etc., for taxation, and a bill to enjoin the State officers from compelling such report on the ground that it would unlawfully expose the affairs of the bank, etc., has been dismissed by the circuit court. There is no property in dispute such as would give the supreme court jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. Youngstown Bank v. Hughes, 106 U. S. 523. 2. The value of the "matter in dispute" must be shown by the record, or by evidence aliunde, or the court has not jurisdiction. Pratt v. Fitzhugh, 1 Black (U. S.) 271. And in cases where the demand is not for money, and the nature of the action does not require the value of the thing demanded to be stated in the declaration, it may be proved in either the circuit or supreme court. United States v. Brig Union, 4 Cranch (U. S.) 216; Rush v. Parker, 5 Cranch (U. S.) 287; Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 634; Richmond v. Milwaukee, 21 How. (U.S.) 391. See Brant v. Gallup, 111 Ill. 487. There are, however, certain rights which are not susceptible of valuation, and of which the supreme court will take jurisdiction on appeal without proof of value. Such as a possessory right to a mining claim. Sparrow v. Strong, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 97. The value of a person's freedom when the circuit court decides in favor of a party's freedom. But it seems, if the decision in the lower court was to the contrary, the person's value as a slave could and should be proved to be in excess of the jurisdictional sum. Lee v. Lee, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 44. And the value of a person's freedom on a question of imprisonment will not be considered within court's jurisdiction. Pratt v. Fitzhugh, I Black (U. S.) 271. 3. Value of Matter in Dispute. How Determined.-The_amount involved in the case before the circuit court determines the question of appellate jurisdiction, and not the sum involved in any previous proceeding involving the same subject and parties. Grant v. McKee, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 248; The D. R. Martin, 91 U. S. 365. Nor the collateral effect of the judgment. New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Trotter, 108 U. S. 564; Opelika v. Daniel, 109 U. S. 108. See Woolley v. Lyon, 115 Ill. 296. The amount claimed in the circuit court is decisive. It is the amount supreme court. The amount claimed by the plaintiff determines his right to appeal, and the amount of the judgment determines defendant's right. When defendant admits part of plaintiff's claim, or the plaintiff recovers a part of his claim, the remainder in dispute determines plaintiff's right to appeal.3 And when actually in controversy, and therefore when that is a money demand, clearly less than the statutory limit, the supreme court cannot be given jurisdiction by claiming damages in excess of the limit. Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 337: Shacker v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 93 U. S. 241. 1. The amount claimed in the court below cannot be increased by evidence or amendments in the appellate court. Richmond v. Milwaukee, 21 How. (U. $) 391; Udall v. Steamship Ohio, 17 How. (U. S.) 17. Nor diminished on a motion to set aside the judgment of the appellate court. Dodge et al. v. Knowles, 114 U. S. 436. 2. When judgment is entered in the court below for less than the sum which confers jurisdiction on the appellate court, the defendant cannot take an appeal, but the plaintiff can, if he has claimed a sum greater than the statutory limit. Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 33; Smith v. Honey, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 469; Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. (U. S.) 73; Pacific Express Co. 7. Malin, 131 U. S. 394; Walker 7. United States, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 163; Merrill v. Petty, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 338; Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U. S. 564; Solomon v. Reese, 34 Cal. 28. To the contrary are two decisions in a state court. Tipton v. Chambers, I Metc. (Ky.) 565; Williams v. Wilson, 5 Dana (Ky.) 596. And the defendant cannot take an appeal, though the verdict was large enough to give jurisdiction, if plaintiff remitted the excess above the limit. Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694; Railroad Co. v. Trook, 100 U. S. 112. In State courts it has been held that the ad damnum in an action determines the right to an appeal or writ of error, and not an erroneous judgment in excess of the ad damnum clause. Hemmenway. Hickes, 4 Pick. (21 Mass.) 497. Nor the demand set out in the pleadings. Chamberlain v. Cochran, 8 Pick. (25 Mass.) 522. Interest. In determining plaintiff's right to appeal, interest on the principal sum, if expressly claimed, will be considered when there has been a gen 12 C. of L.-19 eral verdict for the defendant. United States v. McDaniel, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 634; Udall v. Steamship Ohio, 17 How. (U. S.) 17; Contra, Keiser v. Cox, 116 Ill. 26. In Indiana, under the provisions of a statute of the State, it has been conclusively settled that appeals to the supreme court, in cases originating before a justice of the peace, only lie when the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $50, whether the interest accrued before or after the action was brought. Wagner v. Kastner, 79 Ind. 162; Klebar v. Corydon, So Ind. 95; Galbreath v. Trump, 83 Ind. 381. Set-off. Where no set-off or counter claim has been asserted, the amount recovered is the amount in controversy, as to either plaintiff or defendant, and not the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Winship v. Block, 96 Ind. 446; C. I. St. L. & C. R. Co. v. McDade, III Ind. 23. When there is set up a set-off or counter claim, the sum in controversy has been held to be the sum of the two demands. Bowlus v. Brier, 87 Ind. 391; Coles v. Peck, 96 Ind. 333. But the court will not take judicial cognizance of the fact that by computation it may possibly be made out, as a matter of inference from the plaintiff's declaration, that the claim may be less than the statutory limit when stated to be more. Scott v. Lunt's Admr., 6 Pet. (U. S.) 349. But see Breidert v. Krueger, 76 Ind. 55. 3. When the defendant admits part of the plaintiff's claim, or plaintiff recovers a part of his claim, the question of jurisdiction in appeal is determined by the remainder, which is disputed or not recovered. Tinstman v. First National Bank, 100 U. S. 6; East Tenn., Va. & Ga. R. v. Southern Tel. Co., 112 U. S. 306; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165. But not the jurisdiction of the trial court. Abney v. Whitted, 28 La. An. 818. Contra, Maurer v. Derrick, 1 Ill. (Breese) 153. But a bill praying an account which involves a sum in excess of the statutory limit is within the appellate jurisdiction, though the amount 289 defendant pleads a set off, the amount of the set off, and not plaintiff's judgment, may determine defendant's right to appeal.1 When there are joint plaintiffs, each claiming individually under his own special right, the amount of each individual claim determines the right to appeal,2 but their joint claim determines when they claim under one title.3 The same rule applies to joint defendants. In determining defendant's right to appeal, interest to date of judgment, if allowed, is considered, but costs and interest on the judgment is not.5 7. Exclusive Jurisdiction.-Exclusive jurisdiction may be given to a court by the constitution or by statute.6 When the jurisdiction of a court is exclusive, another court cannot exercise such jurisdiction. Such exclusive jurisdiction must be expressly sought to be recovered may be less, at least when the bill has been dismissed by the lower court. McCormick v. Gray, 13 How. (U. S.) 26, 39. 1. When a plaintiff obtained judgment for less than the statutory limit, the defendant may appeal when he has pleaded a set-off in excess of the statutory limit, the set-off being considered the matter in dispute. Ryan v. Bindley, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 66; Hilton v. Dick inson, 108 U. S. 165; Bradstreet Co. v. Higgins, 112 U. S. 227. 2. Joint Plaintiffs.-When there are joint plaintiffs, each one claiming under his own special right, the amount of each individual claim determines his right to appeal. They cannot unite their claims. Thus, as to claims for salvage: Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 4; Spear v. Place, 11 How. (U. S.) 522. As to libels in rem for damage to goods. Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. (U. S.) 347. As to libels for sailors' wages. Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 143. As to libels for damages by collision. Re Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 106 U. S. 5; Rogers v. Steamer St. Charles, 19 How. (U. S.) 108; The Jesse Williamson, 108 U. S. 305. As to separate creditors having independent claims upon a common fund. Terry v. Bank of Commerce, 93 U. S. 44: Seaver v. Bigelow, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 208; Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Waterman, 106 U. S. 265. 3. But when the parties claim under one title, and for a common and undivided interest, the total claim, and not each individual claim, determines the question. Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. (U. S.) 3; Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112. To the same effect are Larrieux v. Crescent City L. S. etc. Co., 30 La. An. 609; Picard v. Wade, 30 La. An. 623. 4. Joint Defendants. - When there are joint defendants and there is no joint liability, the right to appeal is separate and determined by the judgment rendered against each defendant. Ballard Paving Co. v. Mulford, 100 U. S. 147; Russell v. Stansell, 105 U. S. 303. Thus as to claims for freight. Sheldon v. Clifton, 23 How. (U. S.) 481. But where the defendant's liability is joint, the total surn is the determining factor. Sinclair v. Cooper, 103 U. S. 105. 5. Interest. In determining defendant's right to appeal when interest on the plaintiff's claim to date of judgment is allowed, the interest will be computed and defendant's right thereby determined. Steamer Rio Grande v. Otis, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 178; Schlenker v. Taliaferro, 20 La. An. 565. costs and interest on the judgment will not be considered. Walker v. United States, 4 Wall (U. S.) 163; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Rogers, 93 U. S. 565; Railroad Co. v. Trook, 100 U. S. 112; Oglesby v. Helm, 26 La. An. 61. But See generally, on the subject of jurisdiction determined by values, Murfree's Justices' Practice, ch. 5; COSTS AS AFFECTED BY THE AMOUNT RECOVERED, 4 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, p. 320. 6. See note 7, Jurisdiction Taken Away by Statute, p. 303. 7. When an inferior court has original exclusive jurisdiction, the superior appellate tribunal can only affirm or reverse; it cannot exercise said original jurisdiction in any way. Arizona v. Mix, 1 Arizona 52. given, except that when a new right or offence is created by a statute and jurisdiction thereof is given to a particular court, the jurisdiction of such court is exclusive. When the jurisdiction of a court under a constitution is not exclusive, the legislature may not divest such jurisdiction, but may vest a concurrent jurisdiction elsewhere.2 When a court is given exclusive original jurisdiction over all claims up to a certain amount, another court cannot exercise any original jurisdiction in such cases. Wilson v. Mason, 3 Ark. 494. But the mere grant of "exclusive jurisdiction" to a police court, by the statutes of a State, over certain offences, does not exclude the authority of justices of the peace to receive complaints and issue warrants, returnable before that court, against persons charged with those offences. Commonwealth O'Connell, 8 Gray (Mass.) 464. v. 1. Where the legislature creates a new offence or affixes a different penalty to one previously known, and limits the jurisdiction to a particular court, no other court can take cognizance of it. Rossett v. State, 17 Ala. 496; Aldrich v. Hawkins, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 125. When a right is solely and exclusively of legislative creation (as a mechanic's lien law); when it does not derive existence from the common law or from the principles prevailing in courts of equity, and jurisdiction of it is limited to particular tribunals, and specific, peculiar remedies are provided for its enforcement, the jurisdiction and remedy, being bounded by the statute, can be exercised and pursued only before the tribunals, and in the words the statute provides. Chandler v. Hanna, 73 Ala. 390. So a court of equity cannot aid or supply the defects of a statutory remedy. Janney v. Buell, 55 Ala. 408; Phillips v. Ash's Heirs, 63 Ala. 414. "It may, therefore, be safely held that where a statute upon a particular subject has provided a tribunal for the determination of questions connected with that subject, the jurisdiction thus conferred is exclusive, unless otherwise expressed or clearly manifested." Macklot v. City of Davenport, 17 Iowa 379, 387, Dodson v. Scroggs, 47 Mo. 285; Schuylkill Co. v. Boyer (Pa.), 24 Weekly Notes 29. Revenue Laws.-Where a statute in relation to revenue provides a tribunal for the correction of the errors of the officers, by a proceeding in the nature of an appeal to it, such quasi appellate jurisdiction is exclusive. Randle v. Williams, 18 Ark. 380; Town of Ottawa v. Walker, 21 Ill. 605; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Frary, 22 Ill 34; Merritt v. Farriss, 22 Ill. 303; Munson v. Minor, 22 Ill. 595; Macklot v. City of Davenport, 17 Iowa 379, 387; State v. Southern Steamship Co., 13 La. An. 497; Little v. Greenleaf, 7 Mass. 236; Osborn v. Inhabitants of Danvers, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 98; Bates v. City of Boston, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 93; Howe v. City of Boston, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 273; Deane v. Todd, 22 Mo. 90; State v. Dauser, 3 Zabr. (N. J.) 552; State v. Powers, 4 Zabr. (N. J.) 400; State v. Manchester, I Dutch. (N. J.) 531; Kimber v. Schuylkill County, 20 Pa. St. 366; Hughes v. Kline, 30 Pa. St. 227; Wharton v. Birmingham, 37 Pa. St. 371; Greene v. Mumford, 4 R. I. 313. But this exclusive jurisdiction of such quasi appellate tribunal does not prevent a resort to the ordinary tribunals for remedy against the assessor, when, from corruption or malice, he has overassessed, or the like. Fuller v. Gould, 20 Vt. 643. See also the cases cited in note 7, p. 303, Jurisdiction Taken Away by Stat ute. 2. Constitutional Jurisdiction.-When the jurisdiction conferred by a constitution is not exclusive, the legislature may not divest the court of its jurisdiction, but may vest a concurrent jurisdiction in other tribunals. Dillard v. Noel, 2 Ark. 449, Wilson et al. v. Roach, 4 Cal. 362; Burns v. Henderson, 20 Ill. 264; Bank of Mississippi v. Duncan, 52 Miss. 740; Martin v. Harvey, 54 Miss. 685; Clepper v. State, 4 Tex. 242. But see State v. Judge, 22 La. An. 565. Where, under the constitution, a court has original jurisdiction in civil cases only when sum involved is in excess of fifty dollars, an act of the legis lature may nevertheless give to that court an appellate jurisdiction in cases involving a sum less than fifty dollars with a right of trial de novo in that |