OLD GRANT, ON THE DEMISE OF SAMUEL MEREDITH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN M'KEE, FOR THE USE OF THE BANK OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
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 an ejectment action involving a single lot in Falmouth, Kentucky, the Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error for lack of jurisdiction because the value of the property in dispute did not meet the required $2,000 threshold. Chief Justice Marshall held that the question of title to the lot could not be considered on the writ of error, as only the specific lot at issue—not the entire town property—was involved in the restitution motion.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr; Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the' Court.-—
This is a writ of error to a judgment of the Court of the United States, for the Seventh Circuit, and the district.of Kentucky, awarding restitution of lot No.' 108, in the town of Fal-mouth, to the defendants in error'; who had been turned out of possession, by virtue of a writ of habere facieis possessionem, issued on a judgment in ejectment, in favour of the plaintiff in error. Previous to the institution of the suit, the town of Falmouth had been laid out, in pursuance of an Act of Assembly, and lot No. 108 had been sold and conveyed to George Hendricks.' The law establishing the town of Falmouth,- directed that the lots should be sold,' subject to the condition of making certain improvements thereon, within seven years; on failure to do which, the trustees are empowered to enter on any lot not improved, and sell it again. These improvements were not made on lot No. 108.
The defendant in error moves to quash the writ of error, because the matter in controversy is' not of the value of 2,000>dol-lars. The motion is resisted, because the-whole’ property which was recovered in the ejectment, .may be considered as involved in this motion; since each-tenant may move separately for an award, of restitution; on the supposition' that the regularity of the proceedings, under the law by which the town was established, and the lots sold, may be examined; on this motion, the plaintiff in error has brought that subject into view, and has discussed it fully. But the Court is of opinion, that the question of title cannot be considered on this writ of error. The town of Falmouth was separated from the tract. out of which it was.<-aken, and this lot was sold, before the suit was instituted; neitnerthe trustees of the town, nor the proprietors of the lot, were parties to that ejectment. • The motion to award < restitution, therefore, involved'nothing further. than the-lot to which the party prayed to be restored; and as that is.not of the-value of 2,000 dollars, the Court has no jurisdiction. The writ of error is to be dismissed.
Writ of error dismissed for want.of jurisdiction; it net appearing that the value of the premises, in this suit, is two thoúsand dollars.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Indianapolis v. Chase Nat'l Bank, 314 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1941)…policy. See Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445; New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91; Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315, 328-29; Coal Company v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172; Shamrock Oil Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U. S. 100; and compare Old Grant v. M’Kee, 1 Pet. 248; Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578; Healy v. Ratta, 292 U. S. 263; McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178. Reversed. Mr. Justice Jackson: The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Roberts, Mr. Justice Reed and I are unable to concur in this…
-
Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1882)…s impossible to foresee into what mazes of speculation and conjecture we may not be led by a departure from the simplicity of the statutory provision. Accordingly this court has uniformly been strict to adhere to and enforce it. In Grant v. McKee, 1 Pet. 248, it refused to take jurisdiction, because the value of the premises, the title to which was involved in that action, was less than the jurisdictional limit, although they were part of a larger tract, held under one title, on which the recovery in ej…
-
New England Mortg. Sec. Co. v. GAY, 145 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1892)…is determined by the amount' involved in the particular case, and not by any contingent loss either one of the parties may sustain by the probative effect of the judgment, however certain it may be that such loss will occur. Thus in Grant v. McKee, 1 Pet. 248, it was held, that the court'would not take jurisdiction of a case where the title to a piece of land of less value than the jurisdictional sum was directly involved, although the whole property claimed by the lessor of the plaintiff under a patent,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence