CARNE
v.
RUSS
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.
Russ sought equity relief to cancel a tax deed and certificate of tax sale affecting his Chicago property, claiming the taxes were illegally levied and that he had tendered full payment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the only genuine dispute was over the amount of money owed to the defendants, with the difference between the Circuit Court's calculation and the defendants' highest claim being less than $5,000, which fell below the minimum amount in controversy required to support appellate jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Geay delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a bill in equity by Russ, as the owner of land in Chicago, worth more than $40,000, against Ogden and others, to set aside and cancel, as creating a cloud upon his title, a tax deed to Ogden, and a certificate of tax sale procured by the other defendants as his agents.
The bill alleged that the taxes upon which the tax deed and certificate were issued were illegally levied and apportioned, and that the plaintiff had tendered to the defendants the full amount of the taxes paid by them.
The defendants answered, denying the plaintiff’s title, the illegality of the taxes, and the tender of payment. But Ogden, in his answer, offered to waive his claim of - title to the land and to reconvey it to the plaintiff, if the plaintiff would pay him the. sums paid by him, with penalties accrued thereon and ten per cent interest. And the other defendants, in their answers, disclaimed all title in themselves.
At the hearing, the defendants contended that the sums which the plaintiff was in equity bound to pay them amounted to $8705.34. But the Circuit Court held that those sums amounted to $4291.84 only, and that the plaintiff, upon paying this amount, (which he forthwith paid into court,) was entitled' to the relief prayed for, and' entered a final decree in his favor. The defendants appealed to this court.
Upon the admissions of the answers, and upon the claims made by the defendants in the Circuit Court, and renewed in this court, it clearly appears that the plaintiff’s title to the land was not really contested, but that the only matter in controversy was the amount of money which the plaintiff was equitably bound to pay to the defendants, and that the difference between the sum which the Circuit Court held him to pay and the highest sum claimed by the defendants was less than $5000.' The amount in controversy, therefore, is insufficient to support the appellate jurisdiction of this court. Act of February 16, 1875, c. 77, § 3; 18 Stat. 316; Peyton v. Robertson, 9 Wheat. 527; Farmers’ Bunk of Alexandria v. Hooff, 7 Pet. 168; Ross v. Prentiss, 3 How. 771; Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 6.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDANIEL v. Traylor, 196 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1905)
-
Rapoport v. Rapoport, 416 F.2d 41 (9th Cir. 1969)…in common, because he still owns that interest if the divorce was valid. All he could win or lose was the difference in value between his interest as a tenant in common and his interest as a husband-tenant by the entirety. (Cf. Carne v. Russ (1894) 152 U.S. 250, 14 S.Ct. 578, 38 L.Ed. 428; 1 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 0.95, pp. 864-65.) There are no facts in his affidavits from which the conclusion could follow that his interest as a tenant in common was worth at least $10,000 less than his interes…
Authorities Cited
- Tintsman v. Nat'l Bank, 100 U.S. 6 (U.S. 1879)
- Peyton v. Robertson, 9 Wheat. 527 (U.S. 1824)
- Farmers Bank of Alexandria v. Hooff, 7 Pet. 168 (U.S. 1833)