WILSON
v.
BLAIR
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 dismissed a writ of error because the plaintiff failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the value of the property in dispute exceeded five thousand dollars, which was required for the Court's jurisdiction. The Court held that the burden of proving jurisdictional value rests on the plaintiff in error, and where affidavits submitted to establish value were contradictory—with most evidence suggesting the property was worth between $3,000 and $3,500—the plaintiff had not met this burden.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite,
delivered the opinion of the court.
Our jurisdiction in this case depends on the value of the matter in dispute. Final judgment was entered in the action May 24,1884. At that time there was nothing in the record to show the valúe. On the 16th of September, 1884, on mo-, tion, leave was given the defendant in the court below to file affidavits of value that day, and the plaintiff to file counter, affidavits in twenty days. This was good practice, and, if oftener adopted, would save trouble to parties and to us. Under this leave, and others of a similar character, which were afterwards granted, a considerable number of affidavits were filed by both parties. The affidavits were contradictory, some having a tendency to prove that the value was more than five thousand dollars, and others that it was less. On the 5th of May,' 1885, the district judge, .without' formally deciding the 'question, of valúe, .allowed a; writ of error, thus sending the case here on the-affidavits, free from any decision whatever by the court below as to their effect. In this respe'ct the case differs 'from Gage v. Pumpelly, 108 U. S. 164, where the appeal was allowed by the court in session after considering the affidavits; and from Zeigler v. Hopkins, 117 U. S. 683, where .the value was found as one of the facts in the case.
• The burden of showing jurisdiction is on the plaintiff in error. He must establish as a fact by a fair preponderance of testimony that the value of the property in dispute exceeds five thousand dollars. This he has not done. Two witnesses . swear that the property is worth more than six thousand dollars, and-eight that it is worth five thousand dollars, “ or more.” These are for the plaintiff in error, but there are eight on the other side Who say it is worth only from about $3000 to about $3500, and the certificate of the county clerk shows that it was valued for taxation in 1884 at only seven hundred, dollars. Under these circumstances, we think ^the decided preponderance of the evidence is against our jurisdiction, and the motion to dismiss is therefore granted.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Red River Cattle Co. v. Needham, 137 U.S. 632 (U.S. 1891)…submitted, the finding of the court below as to value was not a material question in the case upon [*635] its merits, but was more in the nature of an inquiry for the purpose of determining whether an appeal should be allowed, as in Wilson v. Blair, 119 U. S. 387. Here, .however, the value of the property was one of the questions in the case and necessarily involved in. its determination.” In Zeigler v. Hopkins, this court treated the finding of the court below upon the question of value as entitled to well…
-
Forno v. Coyle, 75 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1935)…sworn statement is more than a mere “expression of opinion,” for it clearly sets forth thg facts upon which that opinion is based. The uncontradicted affidavit is sufficient evidence of value to establish jurisdictional amount. See Wilson v. Blair, 119 U. S. 387, 7 S. Ct. 230, 30 L. Ed. 441; Davie v. Heyward (C. C.) 33 F. 93; Red River Cattle Co. v. Needham, 137 U. S. 632, 11 S. Ct. 208, 34 L. Ed. 799. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, and we advance to a consideration of the case on…
-
De la Torre v. Nat'l City Bank of N.Y., 110 F.2d 381 (1st Cir. 1939)…urt 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 such affidavits may be received after the appeal has been…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Zeigler v. Hopkins, 117 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1886)
- Gage v. Pumpelly and Others, 108 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1883)