STREET
v.
FERRY
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.
In this 1886 case involving a land dispute between Street and Ferry, the Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the value of the disputed property fell below the $5,000 threshold established by the March 3, 1885 statute governing appeals from territorial and District of Columbia courts. The Court determined that affidavits showing the land's value at approximately $3,000 to $3,500, including improvements, were insufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirement, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
• Mr. Chief Justice "Waite delivered the opinion of the .court.
This appeal was taken since.the act of March 3,-1885, c, 355,-23. Stat. 443, went, into effect. That statute,- by § 1, limits-appeals to this court from' the Supreme Courts of the Territories and from the Supreme Court of the District -of Columbia to cases where the value of the matter in dispute exceeds five thousand dollars* except, by' § 2, the validity of a patent or copyright is involved, or the validity of a treaty or a statute, or an authority exercised under the United States js drawn in question. • The value here referred to is the value at the time .of the final judgment or deóree, not at the time of .the appeal Or, writ of error. Nothing whatever appears on -the face of the record proper to... show the value of the matter in dispute,. The judgment .was rendered July 22, 1886, and an appeal allowed the same day iñ open, court.' Affidavits of value were filed in the court foeloúr-after this-allowance, and these affidavits were sent here with the transcript. Other affidavits have. been filed in this court since the case was docketed, and, on consideration of the whole, we are satisfied that the value is not sufficient to give us jurisdiction. The appellant himself puts the' value of the land alone at only four thousand dollars, and the fair inference, from all the affidavits taken together, is, that the improvements on the lapd are worth much less than one thousand dollars. A large number of witnesses, who seem to--be well qualified to judge of the value, put it' at from $3000 to $3500, including all improvements.
The patent referred to in the second section-of the act is a. patent for an invention, or discovery, not a patent for land.
The motion to dismiss is gromted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
South Carolina v. Seymour, 153 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1894)…, or some right the value of which can be estimated • and ascertained in money, and which appears by the record to be of the requisite pecuniary value. Columbian Ins. Co. v. Wheelright, 7 Wheat. 534; Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487; Street v. Ferry, 119 U. S. 385; Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167, 176; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82, 88; Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. District of Columbia, 146 U. S. 227; Cameron [*358] v. United States, 146 U. S. 533, 535, and 148 U. S. 301, 303. In Sparrow v. Strong, 3 Wall…
-
Conn. Fire Ins. Co. v. McNEIL, 35 F.2d 675 (6th Cir. 1929)…ity to grant relief purely legal in its nature after denial of all equitable remedy. Doubtless the court might have dismissed the bill in its entirety and have remitted the plaintiff to his remedy at law (Kramer v. Cohn, 119 U. S. 355, 7 S. Ct. 277, 30 L. Ed. 439); or, having decided that an equitable action would not lie, but that the plaintiff could recover at law, the suit might have been transferred to the law side of the court under Equity Rule 22 (28 USCA § 723), and the legal issues there determined.…
-
Queen Ins. Co. of Am. v. Citro, 58 F.2d 107 (7th Cir. 1932)…ere either alleged or proven, and that the trial court should have dismissed the bill without prejudice. Fleming v. Reheis, 2,75 Ill. 132, 113 N. E. 923; Mitchell v. Dowell, 105 U. S. 430, 26 L. Ed. 1142; Kramer v. Cohn, 119 U. S. 355, 7 S. Ct. 277, 30 L. Ed. 439. The decree of the trial court is reversed, with instructions to dismiss the bill without prejudice.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence