Scott v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 243 (1920)

Status: /us/253/243/case.html

Docket Number: 508

Linked as:

Text

U.S. Supreme Court SCOTT v. FRAZIER , 253 U.S. 243 (1920)

253 U.S. 243

SCOTT et al. v. FRAZIER et al. No. 508. Argued April 19 and 20, 1920. Decided June 1, 1920.

Messrs. N. C. Young, of Fargo, N. D., and Tracy R. Bangs and C. J. Murphy, both of Grand Forks, N. D., for appellants.

Messrs. S. L. Nuchols, of Mandan, N. D., W. S. Lander, of Wahpeton, N. D., and Frederick A. Pike, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellees.

[Page 253 U.S. 243, 244]

Memorandum opinion by direction of the Court by Mr. Justice DAY.

This suit, so far as the merits are concerned, is like No. 811, just decided. 253 U.S. 233, 40 Sup. Ct. 499, 64 L. Ed. --. It was brought in the District Court of the United States for the District of North Dakota to enjoin the payment of public funds in the state treasury and the issuing of state bonds under the Constitution and laws of North Dakota. We have sufficiently stated the nature of this Constitution and the laws involved in the opinion in No. 811.

The jurisdiction was invoked because of alleged violation of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The complainants were taxpayers of North Dakota, who alleged that suit was brought on behalf of themselves and all other taxpayers of the state. There was no diversity of citizenship and jurisdiction was rested solely upon the alleged violation of constitutional rights. The District Court rendered a decree dismissing the bill on the merits; the judge stating that he was of opinion that there was no jurisdiction, and directing the dismissal on the merits to prevent delay, and to permit the suit being brought here by a single appeal.

There is no allegation that the loss or injury to any complainant amounts to the sum of $3,000. It is well settled that in such cases as this the amount in controversy must equal the jurisdictional sum as to each complainant. Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U.S. 379, 21 Sup. Ct. 402; Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U.S. 621, 36 Sup. Ct. 217.

The District Court was right in its conclusion that there was no jurisdiction. The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded to the District Court, with directions to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction.

So ordered.