SCHWED
v.
SMITH
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 Supreme Court held that where multiple judgment creditors join in a single suit against a debtor to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, each creditor's separate and distinct interest must be evaluated independently for purposes of federal appellate jurisdiction, and their individual claims cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement, even though the combined effect of the decree exceeds the threshold. The Court reasoned that because the creditors could have maintained separate suits but chose to join for convenience, the legal effect of the decree is severable as to each creditor just as it would be as to the defendant, and thus each party's interest must be separately calculated for jurisdictional purposes.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite,
-after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
It is impossible to distinguish this case in principle from Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208, where an appeal by creditors who had joined in a suit to set aside a fraudulent conveyance by their debtor was dismissed because the amounts found due the appellants, respectively, were less than our jurisdictional limit. In delivering the opinion of the court, Mr. Justice Nelson said: “ The judgment creditors who have joined in this bill have separate and distinct interests, depending upon separate and distinct judgments. In no event could the sum in dispute of either party exceed the amount of their judgment. . . . The bill being dismissed, each fails in obtaining payment of his demands. If it had been sustained, and a decree rendered in their favor, it would only have been for the amount of the judgment of each.” In the present case, the judgment creditors did succeed, and, in effect, each recovered a decree against Heller, setting aside his judgment so far as it affected them individually. Had they been defeated they could not have appealed, because, although allowed in equity to join in their suit, they had “ separate and distinct interests depending on separate and distinct judgments,” as well as separate and distinct attachments. But if the decree is several as to the creditors, it is difficult to see why it is not as to their adversaries. The theory is, that, although the proceeding is in form but one suit, its legal effect is the same as though separate suits had been begun on each of the separate causes of action.
The appeal in Seaver v. Bigelows was from a decree against the creditors, but, in deciding the case, the court, in express terms, adopted the . analogous practice in admiralty, where, under certain circumstances, separate and distinct causes of action may be united in one suit, and in that practice it has always been held that the ship-owner cannot unite the separate decrees against him in a suit to make up the amount necessary for our jurisdiction on appeal. That question was fully-considered in Ex parte Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, ante, p. 5. Although the effect of the decree is to deprive Heller in the aggregate of more than $5,000, it has been done at the suit of several parties on several claims, who might have sued separately, but whose suits have been joined in one for convenience and to save expense.
Motion granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U.S. 631 (U.S. 1895)…dual claims do none of them exceed the requisite amount, but when the matters in dispute are separate and distinct, and are joined in one suit for convenience or economy,, the case will be dismissed as to claims not exceeding $5000. Schwed v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188; Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61; Estes v. Gunter, 121 U. S. 183; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27; Henderson v. Carbondale Coal, &c. Co., 140 U. S. 25; New Orleans Pacific Railway v. Parker, 143 U. S. 42; Chapman…
-
Stewart & Others v. Dunham & Others, 115 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1885)…al, for the reason that the decrees in their favor are several, and that the amounts adjudged to be paid to them respectively do not exceed the sum (Dr value of $5;,0'(D0. On the authority of Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall., 208; Schwed [*65] v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188; Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. v. Waterman, 106 U. S. 265; Adams v. Crittenden, 106 U. S. 576; Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543; and Fourth National Bank v. Stout, 113 U. S. 684, the motion to dismiss the appeal as to all the appellees, except Dunha…
-
Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1887)…n, 106 U. S. 576. The same rule has been applied in many recent cases where the appeal has been taken by the party who had been ordered by the decree below to pay several distinct- claims amounting, together to more than $5000. In Schwed v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188, property worth more-than $5000 having been taken on execution upon a judgment confessed by the owners in favor of one Heller for more than $5000, subsequent attaching creditors, whose .claims were jointly more, but severally less, than that sum, fi…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208 (U.S. 1866)