HUNTINGTON
v.
SAUNDERS
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.
William A. Saunders obtained a discharge in bankruptcy despite James Huntington's objections, which were dismissed for lack of prosecution after remaining dormant for years. The Supreme Court dismissed Huntington's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the matter in controversy—the value of preventing Saunders's discharge—did not exceed the one-thousand-dollar threshold required for Supreme Court review under the Judiciary Act of 1891, since there was no evidence in the record of any monetary value to the certificate of discharge.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mb. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
William A. Saunders was adjudicated bankrupt by the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, October 1,1875, on petition of creditors filed July 13,1875. Saunders applied for a discharge by petition filed July 19,1876, of which, notice was given returnable May 25, 1S77. James Huntington objected to tiie granting of the discharge and, on June 4, 1877, filed written specifications of his objections. Several hearings were had thereon before the register, and the hearing was closed in 1S78. December 22, 1S93, Saunders made an application that the objections to his discharge might be dismissed or heard at an early day. December 23, 1893, the court dismissed Huntington’s objections for want of prosecution, and on December 30, 1893, granted the bankrupt’s discharge.
On January 1, 1894, Huntington gave notice of an application to the Circuit Court for a review of the dismissal of objections and the granting the discharge, and on January 3,1894, filed his petition for revision in the Circuit Court of the United States for the First Circuit. Issues were made up and the case heard. The Circuit Court held that the petition must be dismissed, 64 Fed. Hep. 476, and on January 16,1895, an order to that effect was entered. Thereupon Huntington appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, February 3, 1896. 33 U.
S. App. 416.
It was stipulated that Huntington was a creditor of Saunders, “and that the amount of his claim against the bankrupt, which will be discharged if the discharge granted to the bankrupt shall stand, amounts to over five thousand dollars ($5000), exclusive of any interest or costs.”
From the final decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals Huntington prayed an appeal to this court, which was allowed, and having been docketed here, a motion to dismiss was made.
This appeal is prosecuted under the last clause of section six of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, providing: “In all cases not hereinbefore, in this section, made final there shall be of right an appeal or writ of error or review of the case by the Supreme Court of the United States where the matter in controversy shall exceed one thousand dollars besides costs.”
This is not one of the cases in which the decrees or judgments of the Circuit Courts of Appeals are made final by that section, but in our opinion the matter in controversy does not exceed one thousand dollars besides costs. The proof of Huntington 's claim was not in controversy nor the amount of it. Whether Saunders was entitled to a certificate of discharge was in controversy, but even assuming that the value of this certificate was susceptible of an estimate in money, there was no evidence whatever in the record tending to show this value. South Carolina v. Seymour, 153 U. S. 353, 358. Huntington was entitled to share in whatever assets passed to the assignee, and whether Saunders had acquired new assets after he was put into bankruptcy did not appear. The matter in controversy must have actual value, and that cannot be supplied by speculation on the possibility that if a discharge were refused something might be made out of the' bankrupt. Durham v. Seymour, 161 U. S. 235.
Ayyeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
State v. Cone, 130 Fla. 158 (Fla. 1937)…as obligations of justice and honor, as distinguished from legal ‘Contractual’ obligations; the power to ascertain and determine the obligations within this class being entirely political and legislative. United States v. Realty Co., 163 U. S. 427, 16 S. Ct. 1120, 41 L. Ed. 215; Guthrie National Bank v. City of Guthrie, 173 U. S. 528, 19 S. Ct. 513, 43 L. Ed. 796; Knights v. James Jackson, Treasurer and Receiver General, 260 U. S. 12, 43 S. Ct. 1, 67 L. Ed. 102; Mitchell v. Lowden, 288 Ill. 327, 123 N. E. 56…
-
Thompson v. Thompson, 226 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1913)
-
Sanders v. The United States, 594 F.2d 804 (Ct. Cl. 1979)…to adjudicate or even advise Congress on merely moral claims is old in our jurisprudence. United States v. Choctaw Nation and Chickasaw Nation, 179 U.S. 494, 532, 21 S.Ct. 149, 45 L.Ed. 291 (1900); United States v. Realty Company, 163 U.S. 427, 444, 16 S.Ct. 1120, 41 L.Ed. 215 (1896); Montgomery v. United States, 49 Ct.Cl. 574 (1914). We now pass judgment on the morality of our ancestors’ doings respecting Indians, as e. g. in United States v. Oneida Nation, 576 F. 2d 870, 217 Ct.Cl. - (1978), but this is be…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- South Carolina v. Seymour, 153 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1894)
- Durham v. Seymour, 161 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1896)