ADAMS
v.
CRITTENDEN
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.
Assignees in bankruptcy and a land purchaser sought to enjoin enforcement of two separate decrees against their property, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the decrees were rendered in distinct suits between different parties and their combined value did not exceed $5,000, the Court's jurisdictional threshold. The Court held that distinct decrees in favor of or against distinct parties cannot be joined to confer appellate jurisdiction, and that the federal question doctrine does not override the monetary jurisdictional requirement in such cases.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was submitted under Rule 20, but on looking into the record we find that we have no jurisdiction. The suit was begun in equity by an assignee in bankruptcy and a purchaser of certain lands sold under an order of the bankrupt court, to restrain the defendant Crittenden from enforcing a decree in his favor against the property for $1,828.93, and the defendant Weaver from enforcing another decree in her favor for $2,348.10. The decrees to be enjoined were entirely separate and distinct from each other, one having been rendered in á suit instituted by Crittenden, and the other in a suit by Weaver.' The two suits presented substantially the same questions for adjudication, but they were in all other respects distinct. ‘ The two decrees were rendered on the same day, and draw interest from March 6, 1879. The Circuit Court, in the present suit, dismissed the bill on the 24th of October, T881; and from a decree to that effect this appeal was taken.
The case comes clearly within the rule stated at the present term in Ex parte Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, ante, p. 5, to the effect that distinct decrees in favor of or against distinct parties cannot be joined to give this court jurisdiction; but if they could, these appellants would be in no better condition, because the aggregate of the two decrees, with interest added to the date of the dismissal of the bill, does not exceed $5,000.
Except in certain cases, of which this is not one, the mere fact1 that the matter in dispute arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, does not give us jurisdiction for the review of the judgments or decrees of the Circuit or District Courts. If the value of the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, does not, in' such a case as this, exceed $5,000, we cannot consider it any more than others in which the amount in value is less than our jurisdictional limit.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart & Others v. Dunham & Others, 115 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1885)…d 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 Dunham, Buckley & Co., must be granted. As to the remaining appellees, the cause must be dispose…
-
Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1887)…,” and “although the amount due the appellee from the levee district exceeds $5000, his claim on the several owners of property is only for the sum assessed against them respectively.” See also Chatfield v. Boyle, 105 U. S. 231; Adams v. Crittenden, 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, p…
-
The Maggie J. Smith. Walker v. DUN, 123 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1887)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence