GREEN
v.
FISK
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 partition suit, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a decree that found the appellees owned one-eighth shares of property worth only ten thousand dollars and referred the matter to a master for actual division, holding that the decree was not final and that even if it were, the Court lacked jurisdiction because the value of the property in dispute fell below the jurisdictional minimum required for Supreme Court review. The Court established that a party appealing to the Supreme Court must affirmatively demonstrate that the pecuniary value of what was adjudged against him meets or exceeds the Court's jurisdictional threshold.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This, like Green v. Fisk, just decided, is a. motion to dismiss an appeal in a partition suit, because the decree appealed from is not final, and also, because the value of the matter in dispute does not exceed five thousand dollars. The appellees, complainants below, claim to be the owners each of one-eighth of the property to be divided, which it is admitted is worth only ten thousand dollars. In the petition it is alleged that the value of the annual income was five thousand dollars, and an account of the revenue is asked as well as a partition. This suit, like the other, was begun in a state court, and removed by Green to the Circuit Court, where, by an express order, it was put on the equity docket and a change in the pleadings directed so as to make it conforin to rules governing equity cases.
The decree appealed from simply adjudges that the appellees are the owners each of one-eighth the property, and refers the matter “to J. W. Gurley, Esq., master, to proceed to a partition according to law, under the directions of the court.” As was decided in the other case, this is not a final decree, but if it was we would be without jurisdiction, because the property only has been adjudged to the appellees, and the value of that is less than the amount required to bring a case here. There has been no order even for an accounting, and as yet we are not advised there ever will be one, much less that if it should be made a balance would be found due from the appellant sufficient to make the value of the matter in dispute on an appeal by him such as our jurisdiction requires. As the appellant to sustain his appeal must show affirmatively that more in pecuniary value than our jurisdictional requirement has been adjudged against him, he has failed to make a case for us to consider. The motion to dismiss is granted.
Mr. Thomas J. Durant and Mr. Charles W Hornor for the motion.
Mr. Thomas J. Semmes opposing.