MONSIGNOR HARTY
v.
MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIA
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.
An Archbishop sought to recover a public square in the Municipality of Victoria in the Philippines, claiming ownership of land beyond the church and parish house structures already recognized as church property, but the Philippine Supreme Court found the disputed land constituted a public plaza devoted to public uses. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and writ of error, holding that the case could not be reviewed because the value of the land in controversy did not exceed $25,000, the jurisdictional threshold for appeals, and because no reviewable question of law was presented since the lower court's factual findings regarding the preponderance of evidence were not subject to this Court's review.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This suit, was brought by the Archbishop of Manila to recover a square in the Municipality of Victoria. The church of the town and its parish house stand in this square and they are admitted to be church property, but the land not occupied by them was declared by the Supreme Court to constitute the public square or plaza of the town, devoted to public uses. The plaintiff brought a writ of error and appealed. The appeal must be dismissed. Jover v. Insular Government, 221 U. S. 623, 635. Cariño v. Insular Government, 212 U. S. 449, 456. The suit is like an ordinary action at law, and can be brought to this court only by writ of error, as was done in Santos v. Roman Catholic Church, 212 U. S. 463, and Ker v. Couden, 223 U. S. 268.
There is a motion to dismiss the writ of error also, on the ground that the value of the real estate in controversy does not exceed $25,000. Affidavits to that effect are offered, and the order allowing the writ purports to do so on affidavits of the plaintiff and two others, “notwithstanding the fact that by admission of counsel for plaintiff, it appears that the value of the parcel of land for which judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant municipality, exclusive of the value of the adjoining parcel of land with the church and convent situated thereon, title to which is recognized to be in the plaintiff, and damages thereto resulting from the aforesaid judgment, does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars.” We doubt whether the affidavits do not imply the same admission, and whether the action should not be dismissed on that ground. The affidavit of the plaintiff puts the value of the land in controversy at over $25,000 on the manifestly untenable ground that the church edifices are deprived of free egress and ingress by the decision, and the others seemingly mean that the parcel of land with the church buildings included is worth thirty thousand dollars, the buildings being valued at twenty-five thousand dollars^ — leaving five thousand dollars for the land in dispute.
But the result is the same if we go further. The evidence was contradictory, and although we were invited to consider it on the one side in the light of the relation of the church to the community and on the other in that of the custom by which the plaza is of the essence of a town, we can do neither. There is no question of law before us — for it hardly was argued, and could not be with any' seriousness, that the Supreme Court was not authorized to review the evidence under § 497 of the Philippine Code, or that this court can consider whether it was right in finding the preponderance of evidence to be on the defendant’s side.
Appeal and writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Johnson, 160 F.2d 789 (9th Cir. 1947)
-
Bedal v. The Hallack & Howard Lumber Co., 226 F.2d 526 (9th Cir. 1955)…’Neill, 6 Cir., 211 F. 2d 190; Jesionowski v. Boston & Maine R. R., 329 U.S. 452, 457, 67 S.Ct. 401, 91 L.Ed. 416; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 46, 48, 6S S.Ct. 391, 92 L.Ed. 468. . The quoted language is from Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U.S. 233, 33 S.Ct. 4.16, 57 L.Ed. 815, as quoted in the Jesionowski case, supra [329 U.S. 452, 67 S.Ct. 404], That this is no more than a permissible inference which the jury may but is not compelled to accept is the majority rule. See Prosser on Torts, p. 302. Wo assum…
-
Tayabas Land Co. v. Manila R.R. Co., 250 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1919)…h” the properties involved. We say this only in passing. The case is here on writ of- error and we cannot examine questions of fact. Santos v. Roman Catholic Church, 212 U. S. 463; Ling Su Fan v. United States, 218 U. S. 302, 308; Harty v. Victoria, 226 U. S. 12; Gauson v. Compañía General &c., 245 U. S. 86, 88. Errors of law besides those stated above are asserted. For instance the company contends that the court used the evidence that had been introduced to prove title as evidence of value and, further,…
Authorities Cited
- Cariño v. The Insular Gov't of the Philippine Islands, 212 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1909)
- Ker & Co. v. Couden, 223 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1912)
- Jover Y Costas v. Insular Gov't of the Philippine Islands, 221 U.S. 623 (U.S. 1911)
- Santos v. Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, 212 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1909)