2 FEDERAL REPORTER.
and Daily, the two plaintiffs who own a twelfth interest of the claims,
and the lessees, are citizens of this state; the defendants also are
citzens of this state; and the question is whether the action can be
maintained here by these plaintifis against these defendants. On
that the rule is that all of the plaintiii”s_,.who have any interest in the
property must have a different citizenship from the defendants. As-
suming that Jones and Daily, as lessees, have no substantial interest
in the property, or, at least, that they need not be joined in this action,
West and Worthington remain, having a twelfth interest each. They
have no standing in this court, and cannot prosecute an action here
against other citizens of the samestate.
The averment in the complaint that this is an action that involves
the ‘Tc0nstruction andconsidcration of the laws of the United States
upon .the subject. oflmines and mining,. and the validity and title to
mining claims occurring and arising thereun<ler," is not sufncient to
show a cause of action arising under the laws of the United States.
The question which arises under those laws, and the difference of
opinion between parties as to the meaning and effect of those laws,
is to be stated in the complaint to show such cause of. action.
The authority which we follow on that subject is Gold Washing et?
Water C0. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199. ln that case it was decided that
there must be a controversy between parties as to the meaning and
effect of a law of the United States. It is not- suflicient that they;
basetheir right to recover upon the acts of congress relating to mining
claims, but there must be some dispute between the parties as to _the
construction of those laws. _ .
· The action is one which- cannot be maintained in this court, and
will be dismissed, pursuant to the motion of the defendants j `
. See Kerliny v. Cotzhaasen, 16 FEI). RED. 705; State of Illinois v. Chicago,
B. ef: Q. R. C0. Id. 706;. Adams Exp. Co. v. Denver ct· R. G. Ry. Co. Id. 712;
]lLye*rs V. Union Pac. Ry. C0. Id. 292; Cruilrslmn/: v. Fourth Nat. Bunk, Id.
888; Bates v. New Orleans, B. R. ef: V. R. C0. Id. 291; Ellis v. Norton, Id. 4.
[En. _ j
Goonrmn and others v. Sawxn. (No. 126.) -
i (C'z'rcuz`t Court, W. D. Tennessee. June 29, 1883.)
1. COSTS—·EQUITY PR.\CTICE—BlLL Disurssnn nv PL.\INTIFF—DOCKET FEE-
WHEN TAX.·\BI.E—-REV. ST. §§ S23, S24, Axn 983, Coxsrnurtn.
\Vhen a bill in equity is, after answer tiled, dismissed by the plaintiff, on his
own application, either generally or "without prejudice," the granting of
such an order is a "final hearing" in the sense of Rev. St. §§ 8:23 and 824,
and the solicitor’s docket fee of $20 is then taxable as part of the costs ofthe
· case, " recoverable bylaw in favor of the prevailing party," in the sense of Rev.
St. § 983. This results from the general law of costs in courts of equity which
is adopted by this act of congress, so far as relates to the principles governing
the court in the taxation of costs, as between party and party.