is whether the sum or value of the matter in dispute exceeded two thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, as required by the act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, § 1, 25 Stat. 433. The facts are these:

Upon a sale of land situate in the western district of Kentucky, the vendor lawfully reserved a vendor's lien for the unpaid portion of the purchase price, for which he took two promissory notes of $1,200 each, payable in one and two years. Shortly thereafter the notes were assigned to the present appellants, one to each; and by the law of Kentucky the vendor's lien passed to the assignees, as a common security for the payment of both notes, without any priority of right in either assignee. After the maturity of the notes, both remaining wholly unpaid, the assignees jointly brought this suit to enforce the vendor's lien. They and their assignor were citizens of Indiana, and the defendant, who acquired the land with notice of the lien, was a citizen of Kentucky.

By a demurrer to the bill the defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, upon the ground that the matter in dispute was not of the requisite jurisdictional value; and the court, being of opinion that such value was not to be measured by the extent to which the plaintiffs collectively were seeking to enforce the lien as a common security, but by the extent to which each was interested in its enforcement, sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction. 184 Fed. Rep. 932. The plaintiffs then appealed directly to this court, and the Circuit Court appropriately certified the question of jurisdiction. Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 826.

When two or more plaintiffs, having separate and distinct demands, unite for convenience and economy in a single suit, it is essential that the demand of each be of the requisite jurisdictional amount; but when several plaintiffs unite to enforce a single title or right, in which

they have a common and undivided interest, it is enough if their interests collectively equal the jurisdictional amount. Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. 3; Rodd v. Heartt, 17 Wall. 354; Davies v. Corbin, 112 U. S. 36, 40; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27; New Orleans Pacific Railway Co. v. Parker, 143 U. S. 42; Walter v. Northeastern Railroad Co., 147 U. S. 370, 373; Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 647; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28.

The present suit is of the latter class. Its controlling object that which makes it cognizable in equity—is the enforcement of the vendor's lien, which is a single thing or entity in which the plaintiffs have a common and undivided interest, and which neither can enforce in the absence of the other. Thus, while their claims under the notes were separate and distinct, their claim under the vendor's lien was single and undivided, and the lien was sought to be enforced as a common security for the payment of both notes.

It follows that the Circuit Court erred in holding that it was without jurisdiction; and its decree is accordingly Reversed, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the

bill and to take such further proceedings in the case as may be appropriate.

Counsel for Parties.

222 U.S.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. DIFFENBAUGH.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. F. H. PEAVEY & COMPANY.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. SAME.

APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.

Nos. 285, 286, 287. Argued October 13, 18, 1911.-Decided November 13,

1911.

The Interstate Commerce Act does not attempt to equalize fortune, opportunities or abilities; it contemplates payment of reasonable compensation by carriers for services rendered, and instrumentalities furnished, by owners of property transported, the only power of the Commission being to determine the maximum of such compensation. Contracts made by various railroads for elevation expenses of grain at points of transshipment at rates not exceeding those fixed by the Commission as reasonable, held not to be illegal discriminations or rebates when paid to owners of elevators on their own grain although such owners performed services other than those paid for at the same time to their own advantage. 176 Fed. Rep. 409, modified and affirmed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. P. J. Farrell and The Solicitor General, for appellant in Nos. 285 and 286.

Mr. Maxwell Evarts, with whom Mr. F. C. Dillard and Mr. Henry W. Clark were on the brief, for appellant in No. 287.

Mr. Frank Hagerman and Mr. John Barton Payne, with whom Mr. M. B. Koon was on the brief, for appellees.

Mr. Robert Dunlap and Mr. Gardiner Lathrop, by leave of court, filed a brief for The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company.

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.

These are appeals from injunctions issued upon bills brought by the appellees against the enforcement of two orders made by the Interstate Commerce Commission. 176 Fed. Rep. 409. The stages by which the Commission. came to its present conclusion, against its earlier view, will be found reported in 10 I. C. C. Rep. 309, 12 id. 85, 14 id. 315. See 14 id. 317, 510, 551. In the Circuit Court these cases were tried upon the same evidence and they raise the same question; but as the Peavey suit presents that question in its initial and simplest form we will state the facts of that case first.

The Union Pacific Railroad, after passing through a grain country, has its eastern termini at Omaha and Kansas City, on the Missouri River. Much the greater part, nine-tenths, more or less, of the grain gathered and carried by the road passes beyond the termini, especially to points farther east. During the season the Union Pacific needs all its cars to collect the grain, and therefore wants to get them back as quickly as possible from the end of its line. Furthermore, the shipments eastward are made more profitably in heavier loads than can be collected from the local stations. For these reasons the Union Pacific sought to prevent its own cars being carried beyond the termini, over connecting lines, and to have the grain shifted to other cars. To make the change it is commercially necessary to pass the grain through an elevator, where also it is weighed, another necessary step in the transportation. See 14 I. C. C. Rep. 317, 318. An additional consideration is that Omaha and Kansas City are great grain markets where there are sales largely in excess

of local needs, and this also requires the grain to pass through elevators at these points. If the Union Pacific could not use these instruments of transfer it could not compete with other roads that have through lines from the grain fields across the Missouri River to the East. See 14 I. C. C. Rep. 317, 327.

Acting on these motives, the railroad company in 1899 made a contract in good faith with Peavey under which he built an elevator at Council Bluffs on the other side of the river from Omaha. He was to receive not exceeding 114 cents per hundred pounds for the first ten years, and one cent for the next ten, for grain transferred through his elevator. Later another elevator was brought into the arrangement, now with Peavey & Co., a corporation. Peavey & Co. is a large dealer in grain and receives the same allowance for its own grain that it receives for that of others. It is important to remark that in no case is any additional charge made to the shipper for the elevator service. In 1904 the Interstate Commerce Commission investigated the matter and upheld the contract, including the allowance for Peavey & Co's own grain. 10 I. C. C. Rep. 309.

The Commission also made a report to Congress, and after further investigation, notwithstanding the fact that the incidental advantages to grain owners from such allowances had been made apparent, Congress passed the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584. By this it was provided in § 1, amending the earlier statute, that "the term 'transportation' shall include all instrumentalities and facilities of shipment or carriage, irrespective of ownership or of any contract, express or implied, for the use thereof and all services in connection with the receipt, delivery, elevation, and transfer in transit, ventilation, refrigeration or icing, storage, and handling of property transported; and it shall be the duty of every carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to