WELLS & OTHERS
v.
WILKINS
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.
Multiple suits in ejectment involving separate parcels of property in Pensacola were brought to the Supreme Court on writs of error, with plaintiffs claiming the property value exceeded $5,000 to establish the Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed all writs of error, finding that counter-affidavits filed by the defendant conclusively demonstrated the property values were substantially less than the jurisdictional threshold, depriving the Court of authority to hear the cases.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. These are suits in ejectment, each for a separate and distinct. part of a lot in Pensacola. A judgment was rendered in each case1 for the recovery of the premises sued for in that case. Neither the pleadings nor the evidence found in the records show the value of the property, but on suing out the writs of error the plaintiffs in error in each case filed two affidavits to ' the effect that the value was more than $5000. ’ Since the cases were docketed here, however, the defendant in error has filed counter affidavits which prove beyond all doubt that this is a mistake, and that the value in every one of the cases is very much less than our jurisdictional limit.
The writs of error are consequently all dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Goldstucker & Another v. Wilkins. Wells & Others v. Wilkins. Wells & Others v. Wilkins. Wells & Others v. Wilkins. Wells & Another v. Wilkins. All in error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida. These cases were all submitted at the same time, and by the same counsel, with Wells v. Wilkins reported above, and are, for the reasons given in the above opinion, all
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
De la Torre v. Nat'l City Bank of N.Y., 110 F.2d 381 (1st Cir. 1939)…der which affidavits might be received by the appellate court to show the existence of jurisdictional amount in controversy where it did not otherwise appear in the record. Parker v. Morrill, 106 U.S. 1, 2, 1 S.Ct. 14, 27 L.Ed. 72; Wells v. Wilkins, 116 U.S. 393, 6 S.Ct. 600, 29 L.Ed. 671; Wilson v. Blair, 119 U.S. 387, 7 S.Ct. 230, 30 L.Ed. 441; Red River Cattle Co. v. Needham, 137 U.S. 632, 11 S.Ct. 208, 34 L.Ed. 799. In Parker v. Morrill, 106 U.S. 1, 2, 1 S.Ct. 14, 27 L.Ed. 72, it is clearly implied that…
-
Titanium Actynite Indus. v. McLENNAN, 272 F.2d 667 (10th Cir. 1959)…by means of lode mining claims; if they are not in fissures in rock in place but are loose or scattered on or through the land they may be located and bought by the use of placer mining claims. Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 116 U.S. 687, 695, 6 S.Ct. 601, 29 L.Ed. 774; Clipper Mining Co. v. Eli Mining & Land Co., 194 U.S. 220, 228, 24 S.Ct. 632, 48 L.Ed. 944." There can be no unyielding rule of thumb definition of a vein or lode; each case must be decided with reference to its own peculiar facts. L…
-
Kanab Uranium Corp. v. Consol. Uranium Mines, Inc., 227 F.2d 434 (10th Cir. 1955)…her under color of title, even though defective, is not right of title entitling them to maintain this action. Affirmed. . The oral arguments made it clear that uranium was the mineral involved. . Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 116 U.S. 687, 6 S.Ct. 601, 29 L.Ed. 774; Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Co., 160 U.S. 303, 16 S.Ct. 282, 40 L.Ed. 436; Union Oil Co. of California v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337, 39 S.Ct. 308, 63 L.Ed. 635; Rooney v. Barnette, 9 Cir., 200 F. 700; Duffield v. San Francisco Chemical C…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence