JOHN HAGAN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
v.
THOMAS J. FOISON
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.
The Supreme Court dismissed Hagan's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the value of the property in dispute—one enslaved woman and two children—did not appear to meet the $2,000 minimum threshold required for the Court's appellate jurisdiction, placing the burden on Hagan to prove the value exceeded that amount. The Court noted that while other related cases involving the same legal points were pending, it would consider jurisdiction in those cases only if they involved sufficient value to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Story delivered the opinion of the court;
The court are not sátisfied that this case is within their appellate jurisdiction. To support that jurisdiction, it is necessary that it should appear upon the face of the record, or upon affidavits to be filed by the parties, that the sum or value in controversy exceeds $2,000-, exclusive of costs. The'onis probandi is upon the party seeking to obtain a revisión of the case, to establish. the-jurisdiction. Here the whole matter in controversy is the ownership of one negro woman and two children, who are slaves; and it is not supposed that their value can be equal to $2,000. The bond in the case, in the nature of a forthcoming bond, in a larger penalty, does not vary the result. But the plaintiff in error is at liberty to establish, if necessary^ that the value exceeds that sum. But there áre other cases on the docket, between the plaintiff in error and other persons, which involved the same points, which have been argued in this case. If any of these cases involved a sum or value which entitles the court to take jurisdiction,- we will hereafter give an opinion upon those points.