The amount demanded by plaintiff in his petition, when not fictitious or merely colorable, but claimed in good faith, and not the amount of the ultimate recovery, is the test for determining whether the requisite jurisdictional amount is involved. Schunk v. Moline, Milburn Stoddard Co., 147 U.S. 500, 504, 507, 13 S. Ct. 416, 37 L. Ed. 255; Smithers v. Smith, 204 U.S. 632, 642-644, 27 S. Ct. 297, 51 L. Ed. 656; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U.S. 550, 559-562, 6 S. Ct. 501, 29 L. Ed. 729; Greene County Bank v. J.H. Teasdale Commission Co. (C.C. Mo.) 112 F. 801, 802-804; Owen M. Bruner Co. v. O.R. Manefee Lbr. Co. (C.C.A. 9) 292 F. 985; Central Commercial Co. v. Jones-Dusenbury Co. (C.C.A. 7) 251 F. 13, 18; Lilienthal v. McCormick (C.C.A. 9) 117 F. 89, 95; Kunkel v. Brown (C.C.A. 4) 99 F. 593, 594, 596; Home Life Ins. Co. v. Sipp (C.C.A. 3) 11 F.2d 474, 476; Schlosser v. Welsh (D.C.S.D.) 5 F. Supp. 993. "`Unsuccessful as well as successful suits may be brought' in a federal court, and in either case the ultimate outcome is not the test of jurisdiction.
It may well be that by forecast of accumulated amounts of tax resulting from excessive and unlawful assessments over a period of years, the requisite jurisdictional amount could be envisioned, but that method of calculating the amount in controversy to determine jurisdiction may not be used. See Schlosser v. Welsh, 5 F. Supp. 993, 996 (D.C.S.D.Cen.Div. 1934). It does appear from the allegations of the Eleventh Count of the complaint that plaintiffs are challenging 1968 assessments.
S. 980, 88 S.Ct. 1099, 19 L.Ed.2d 1276 (1968), reh. den. 390 U.S. 1036, 88 S.Ct. 1405, 20 L.Ed.2d 297 (1968); Howard v. Higgins, 379 F.2d 227, 228 (10th Cir. 1967); Ream v. Handley, 359 F.2d 728, 731 (7th Cir. 1966); Martin v. King, 298 F. Supp. 420, 421 (D.Colo. 1969); Booth v. General Dynamics Corporation, 264 F. Supp. 465, 470 (N.D.Ill. 1967); Abernathy v. Carpenter, 208 F. Supp. 793, 795 (W.D.Mo. 1962), affirmed per curiam 373 U.S. 241, 83 S.Ct. 1295, 10 L.Ed.2d 409 (1963). See Willis v. Reddin, 418 F.2d 702, (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 1969); Mansell v. Saunders, 372 F.2d 573 (5th Cir. 1967); McGuire v. Sadler, 337 F.2d 902, 906 (5th Cir., 1964); Hornsby v. Allen, 326 F.2d 605, 608, 610-612 (5th Cir. 1964); Cobb v. City of Malden, 202 F.2d 701, 705 (1st Cir. 1953); Glicker v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission, 160 F.2d 96, 98, 100-101 (6th Cir. 1947); Burt v. City of New York, 156 F.2d 791, 792 (2d Cir. 1946); Joe Louis Milk Company v. Hershey, 243 F. Supp. 351, 354, 357 (N.D.Ill. 1965); Schlosser v. Walsh, 5 F. Supp. 993, 997 (D.S.D. 1934). Were this court faced with the problem as a matter of first impression, it would be inclined to reject a strict "property-personal liberty" test as determinative of jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act, both because such a distinction is not wholly appropriate in this area and because it is often unworkable in practice.
"* * * it is sufficient to say that [the Civil Rights Statutes] refer to civil rights only and are inapplicable here." The Court is aware of the case of Schlosser v. Welsh, D.C., 5 F. Supp. 993, cited by plaintiffs. In that case, defendant was attempting to assess an income tax of the State of South Dakota against plaintiffs who worked for the federal government.
Helvering, 292 U.S. 360; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738; Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi, 277 U.S. 218, 48 Sup. Ct. 451; Parker v. Miss. State Tax Comm., 174 So. 567; Pease v. Commr. of Internal Revenue, 83 F.2d 122; People v. Cantor, 236 N.Y. 417, 141 N.E. 901; People v. Commissioner, 67 U.S. 620, 17 L.Ed. 451; People v. Graves, 57 Sup. Ct. 269; Pope v. New Haven, 91 Conn. 79, 99 A. 51; Port Angeles Western Ry. Co. v. Callam County, 20 F.2d 202; Powers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 68 F.2d 634; Purnell v. Page, 133 N.C. 125, 45 N.E. 534; Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 41; Ranier Natl. Park Co. v. Henneford, 45 P.2d 617; Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Central Republic Trust Co., 17 F. Supp. 263; Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Krauss, 12 F. Supp. 44; Reed v. Commr. of Internal Revenue, 34 F.2d 263; Regents v. Page, 18 F. Supp. 62; Sargent County v. State, 47 N.D. 561, 182 N.W. 270; Schaaf v. South Dakota Rural Credit Board, 39 S.D. 377, 164 N.W. 964; Schlosser v. Welch, 5 F. Supp. 993; Scibilia v. Philadelphia, 279 Pa. 549, 124 A. 273; Silas Mason Co. v. Henneford, 15 F. Supp. 958; Six Companies v. DeVinney, 2 F. Supp. 693; Smith v. Kansas City Tile Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 41 Sup. Ct. 243; Society for Savings v. Coits, 6 Wall. 604; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 26 Sup. Ct. 110; State v. City of Columbia, 115 S.C. 108, 104 S.E. 337; State v. Fleming, 275 Mo. 509, 204 S.W. 1085; State v. Stewart, 54 Mont. 504, 171 P. 755; State v. Stewart, 53 Mont. 18, 161 P. 309; State ex rel. Thompson v. Truman, 319 Mo. 423, 4 S.W.2d 433; State of Alabama v. United States, 38 F.2d 897; State of North Dakota v. Olson, 33 F.2d 848; State of Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360, 54 Sup. Ct. 725; State of Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U.S. 276, 19 Sup. Ct. 453; Swayne Hoyt v. United States, 57 Sup. Ct. 478; Texas Co. v. Carmichæl, 13 F. Supp. 242; Therrell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 88 F.2d 869; Town of Orange v. City of Barre, 95 Vt. 267, 115 A. 238; Trinityfarm Const.