PAVING COMPANY
v.
MULFORD
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Ballard Paving Company sued to recover certificates of the Auditor of the Board of Public Works allegedly wrongfully held by separate defendants, each liable only for $2,500. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that when multiple defendants are sued for distinct and several liabilities, their interests cannot be aggregated to meet the Court's jurisdictional amount requirement; instead, each defendant's separate liability must be evaluated independently.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mc. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. =
This was a suit in equity brought by the Ballard Paving Company against Michael Mandle and sundry persons-who claimed to have purchased from him certain certificates of the Auditor of the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia, which it was alleged were the property of the company. Mulford and Campbell, the appellees, were two of the defendants, but they were proceeded against as holders of separate and distinct certificates. Their liability as set forth in the bill was several only. There was no pretence of a joint obligation, and it is conceded that in no event could there be a recovery against either of them separately for more than $2,500.. On the hearing, the bill was dismissed as to these defendants, and the paving company has appealed.
We think it clear that we have no jurisdiction in this case. Although many defendants have been brought into the suit, the proceeding is, in fact, against each of the several purchasers to enforce his separate and distinct liability. It is a joinder of distinct causes of action against distinct parties. The same decree is to be entered against each as in case of separate suits. The recovery, if any; must be against each defendant separately for the amount he may personally be found accountable. Such being tbe case, the value of the matter in dispute with each defendant must be the sum for which he is separately liable. It is well settled that neither co-defendants nor co-complainants can unite their separate and distinct interests for the purpose of making up the amount necessary to give us jurisdiction on an appeal. Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208; Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. 347; Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet. 143; Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 id.
41. In such cases, the appeal of each separate defendant or complainant must stand or fall according as his own interest in the controversy exceeds or falls short of our jurisdictional amount. The same principle applies here. For the purposes of an appeal, each separate controversy must be treated as á separate suit. Under this appeal, two separate controversies have been brought here, and in neither is the amount involved sufficient to give us jurisdiction.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guar. Tr. & Safe Deposit Co. v. Buddington, 23 Fla. 514 (Fla. 1887)
-
Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1887)…y a single plaintiff to enforce separate and distinct liabilities against several defendants, if the sum for which .each is alleged or found to be liable' is less than the jurisdictional amount. For instance, it was decided in Paving Co. v. Mulford, 100 U. S. 147, that the plaintiff could not appeal from the dismissal of a bill to assert a right against two [*38] defendants in two distinct certificates of indebtedness, field by them. severally, for sums severally less, though, together more, than that amount…
-
Russell v. Stansell, 105 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1881)…rty, was found to be accountable. An injunction, if granted, would necessarily be to prevent the appellee from collecting from each owner the amount for which he was separately liable. It is clear that under the rulings in Paving Company v. Mulford (100 U. S. 147), Seaver v. Bigelows (5 Wall. 208), Rich v. Lambert (12 How. 347), Stratton v. Jarvis (8 Pet. 4), and Oliver v. Alexander (6 id. 143), such distinct and separate interests cannot be united- -for the purpose of making up the amount necessary- to give…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet. 143 (U.S. 1832)
- Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. 347 (U.S. 1851)
- Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208 (U.S. 1866)