JOHNSON & ANOTHER
v.
WILKINS

U.S. | 1886-05-10
118 U.S. 228 Supreme Court of the United States (1886) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 30 L. Ed. 210 · 6 S. Ct. 1048 · 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1923 · SCDB 1885-256
Cited by 7 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court dismissed Johnson & Wilkins's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the record failed to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000, the minimum threshold required for the Court's jurisdiction. The Court refused to accept affidavits filed more than three months after its dismissal order to supply the missing jurisdictional showing, holding that parties must promptly cure such defects in the record upon notice or forfeit their right to be heard.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was submitted, under Hule 20, on the 7th of January last, but, on looking into the record, we found nothing from which it could fairly be inferred that the value of the matter in dispute exceeded $5000, and, consequently, on the 19th of January, entered an order of dismissal, on our own motion, as it rested “ on the plaintiffs in error to show our jurisdiction, either from the record or by affidavits,” and this had not been done. The present motion was not filed Until April 26th, and we are not willing at this late day to receive and consider affidavits to supply a defect in the record which has existed since the case was docketed on the 11th of August, 1883, and of which the appellants have neglected to take any notice until the expiration of more than three months-from the time the court acted upon it and' entered an order of dismissal on that account. This is one of the class of cases in which the parties are required to act promptly, after they have actual notice of what is required of them, or they will not be heard.

The motion to reinstate is denied.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Maffea v. The Honorable LeRoy MOE, 483 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
    …e, without limit. Logically, the time limit may be derived from that in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b); or the courts may apply the laches principle, as the United States Supreme Court did in Johnson v. Wilkins, 118 U.S. 228, 6 S.Ct. 1048, 30 L.Ed. 210 (1886) (Reinstatement motion would be denied because appellants took no notice for longer than three months after entry of dismissal order). HERSEY, C.J., concurs. ANSTEAD, J., dissents without opinion. . There is also case law stating that after…
  • In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1895)
    …for a writ of mandamus, or upon a new appeal, it is for this court to construe its own mandate, and to act accordingly. Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 493; West v. Brashear, 14 Pet. 51; Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94 U. S. 498; Gaines v. Rugg, 118 U. S. 228, 238, 244. In the case now before us, it is important, in determining what was heard and decided by the Circuit Court in the first instance, and by this court upon the appeal, to bear in mind the settled practice of courts of chancery, recognized a…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw