FARMERS BANK OF ALEXANDRIA
v.
JOHN HOOFF ET AL.
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.
Farmers Bank of Alexandria sought to enforce a deed of trust securing a debt of less than one thousand dollars through a bill for sale of the underlying property, which exceeded the jurisdictional amount. The Supreme Court held that the matter in controversy for jurisdictional purposes is the amount of the debt claimed in the suit, not the value of the property involved, and therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from a decree of the court of the United States for this district, sitting in the county of Alexandria: because the matter in controversy does not amount to one thousand dollars.
The bill was filed for the purpose of obtaining a decree for the sale of a lot, oh which a deed of trust had been given, to secure the payment of a sum of money amounting with interest to less than one thousand dollars. The bill was dismissed, and from this decree ah appeal was taken.
The appellant alleges, in support of the jurisdiction of the court, that the real question is, whether the debtor be entitled to the lot, and as that is worth more than one thousand dollars, this court may take jurisdiction, though the sum claimed in the bill is less.
The court is of a different opinion. The real matter in controversy is the debt claimed in the bill; and though the title of the lot may be inquired into incidentally, it does not constitute the object of the suit.
The appeal is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1887)…of the property, that determines the jurisdiction of this court. This is well illustrated by two cases, in one of which the appeal was taken by the creditor, and in the other by a mortgagee of the property. In Farmers' Bank of Alexandria v. Hooff, 7 Pet. 168, this court dismissed an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, dismissing a bill to have land, worth more than $1000, sold for the payment of a debt of less than $1000, which was the limit of jurisdiction, Chief Jus…
-
McDANIEL v. Traylor, 196 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1905)
-
New England Mortg. Sec. Co. v. GAY, 145 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1892)…an the jurisdictional sum was directly involved, although the whole property claimed by the lessor of the plaintiff under a patent, • and which was recovered in ejectment in the court below, exceeded that sum. In Farmers' Bank of Alexandria v. Hoof, 7 Pet. 168, a bill was filed for the purpose of foreclosing a deed of trust given to secure a sum of money less than $1000. It appeared that the property covered by the deed exceeded that sum in value, but the <3ourt held the real matter in controversy to be t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Columbian Ins. Co. v. Wheelright, 7 Wheat. 534 (U.S. 1822)