that the sales of this defendant of which plaintiff complains
were made on December 16, 1952 and February 5, 1953 when
one-fifth of Calvert Reserve was sold for $3.90 and $3.89,
respectively, whereas the fair trade price was $4.25; and (2)
the adherence to the price schedules of the plaintiff
constitutes a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15
U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., and the Miller-Tydings Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §
45 et seq. This latter point has not been urged by the
defendants and the sole issue is whether or not jurisdictional
amount is present in the instant suit.
The complaint herein proceeds against these defendants for
their separate and individual violations at different times of
prices set by fair trade contracts. It does not purport to
proceed on the theory of a concert of action. Sanction for
this type of joinder is found in Rule 20(a), Fed.Rule
Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A. No claim is made by defendants that
there is a misjoinder of parties defendant in this case, and
under the allegations of the complaint and Rule 20(a), the
joinder is proper.
However, where separate and distinct claims against separate
individuals are joined under Rule 20, the jurisdictional
amount must be present as to each defendant, and the claims
cannot be aggregated to make up the jurisdictional amount.
Clay v. Field, 1890, 138 U.S. 464, 479, 11 S.Ct. 419, 34 L.Ed.
1044; Fechheimer Bros. v. Barnwasser, 5 Cir., 1945,
146 F.2d 974. The presence of jurisdictional amount in injunction suits
is the value of the right to be protected. Glenwood Light,
etc. Co. v. Mutual Light etc. Co., 1915, 239 U.S. 121, 127, 36
S.Ct. 30, 60 L.Ed. 174. It is not the extent of the monetary
loss or damage which has been suffered or is threatened by
invasion. In Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v.
Seagram-Distillers Corp., 1936, 299 U.S. 183, 193, 57 S.Ct.
139, 144, 81 L.Ed. 109, the court said regarding the Fair
Trade Act of Illinois:
"The primary aim of the law is to protect the
property — namely, the good will — of the producer,
which he still owns."
See also Caron Corp. v. Wolf Drug Co., D.C., 1941, 40 F. Supp. 103.