PIERCE
v.
WADE
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.
Pierce sought to recover cattle through replevin, but the marshal mistakenly seized sixty-two head of Texas steers not belonging to Pierce, which were later delivered to him. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the amount in controversy regarding the disputed steers and their value of $1,400 fell below the Court's jurisdictional threshold, and Pierce had recovered all other property he claimed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit in replevin brought by Pierce and Heed, the plaintiffs in error, against Wade to recover a large number of cattle branded in a particular way. In executing tbe writ, tbe marshal, by mistake, took from the defendant sixty-two head of Texas steers, not having the proper brand, and delivered them with the other cattle to the plaintiffs, on receiving the requisite bond. On the trial, it was found that the plaintiffs were the owners, and entitled to the immediate possession of all thus delivered over to them, except the Texas steers, taken by mistake. It was thereupon adjudged that they “ have and recover from the said defendant the possession of all the cattle, . . . except sixty-two head of Texas steers; ” and, as to these, it was adjudged that they be returned by the plaintiffs to the defendant, or if that could not be done, “ that the defendant have and recover from the plaintiffs the said sum of $1,400, the value thereof.” From that judgment the plaintiffs below have taken this writ of error. Upon this state of facts it is clear we have no jurisdiction. The matter in dispute is the sixty-two head of Texas steers, the value of which is only $1,400. The plaintiffs recovered every thing else which they claimed, and the judgment against them is less than $5,000. We have always held that when a case is brought here by the defendant below, the amount of the recovery against him is the measure of our jurisdiction, except when he has asked affirmative relief, and that has been denied. The same rule is applicable to plaintiffs in replevin suits, where the defendant gets judgment for a return of property taken and delivered under the writ, or its value.
Writ of error dismissed.
Note. — In Pierce v. Tough, error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Distriot of Kansas, submitted by the same counsel as was the preceding case, Me. Chiee Justice Waite remarked that, as the judgment was for $2,000 only, the case was in all material respects like that of Pierce v. Wade (supra, p. 444), and that, for the reasons there stated, the writ would he dismissed.
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1883)…ndant sought. to defeat'the judgment against him altogether, and to recover a judgment in his own favor and against the plaintiff for at least $2,000, and possibly $4,000. Thus the matter in dispute in this court exceeded $2,000. In Pierce v. Wade, 100 U. S. 444, the action was replevin for cattle. A judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for the most of the cattle taken on the writ, but against them for $1,400, the value of some that were taken which did not belong to them. They brought the case…
-
Am. United Life Ins. Co. of Indianapolis v. Franklin, 97 F.2d 76 (8th Cir. 1938)…ir., 84 F. 2d 680, 109 A.L.R. 1179. Also see Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165, 174-176, 2 S.Ct. 424, 27 L.Ed. 688; Lamar v. Micou, 104 U.S. 465, 26 L.Ed. 774; New Orleans Banking Ass’n v. Insurance Ass’n, 102 U.S. 121, 26 L.Ed. 45; Pierce v. Wade, 100 U.S. 444, 25 L.Ed. 735; Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U.S. 564, 24 L.Ed 1108; Ryan v. Bindley, 1 Wall. 66, 17 L.Ed. 559; and Municipality of Rio Piedras v. Serra, Carabis & Co., 1 Cir., 65 F. 2d 691, 697. Section 80 requires this Court to “dismiss thc suit or reman…
-
Dowell v. United States, 86 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1936)…ght to sue at all. Since this minor claims only through the administrator the rule applies that where the trustee in whom the right of action resides is barred, the beneficiaries, though under disability, are barred. Meeks v. Olpherts, 100 U.S. 564, 25 L.Ed. 735; Pendergrast v. Foley, 8 Ga. 1; Worthy v. Johnson, 10 Ga. 358, 54 Am. Dec. 393; Morgan v. Woods, 69 Ga. 599. Neither the disability benefits accruing during Grayson’s life nor the death benefits here claimed can now be collected by suit, and the pet…