DE KRAFFT
v.
BARNEY

U.S. | 1862-12-01
2 Black 704 Supreme Court of the United States (1862) Caution
Also reported at: 17 L. Ed. 350 · 1862 U.S. LEXIS 284 · SCDB 1862-036
Cited by 7 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging a father's guardianship of his children because the dispute concerned only the guardianship itself, not a monetary interest, and therefore fell outside the Court's jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789, which limited federal jurisdiction to cases involving money or rights measurable in money.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY.

This case cannot be distinguished from the case of Barry vs. Mercein, (5 How., 103). The centro versy in that case was between a husband and his divorced wife, respecting the guardianship of a child of the marriage who was still an infant.

They were living apart, and each of them claimed the right to the guardianship. And after full argument, the Court held that in order to give .this Court jurisdiction under the 22d section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the matter in dispute must be money, or some right, the value of which could be calculated and ascertained in money. And as the matter in controversy between the parties was not.money, nor a right which could be measured by money, but was a contest between the father and mother of the infant upon other' considerations, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

In the case before the Court, it. is admitted that De Krafft, the appellant, has no pecuniary interest in the controversy. He appears as jprochein ami for the children of Barney, whose wife is dead, and from whom the children, inherited a large property. De Krafft alleges that Barney, from his character and habits, is unfit to be trusted with the guardianship of the persons or property of his children, and prays that some other persons suitable and trustworthy may be appointed by the Orphans’ Court. The guardianship of the persons and property of the children is, therefore, the only matter in dispute, not on account of ány pecuniary value attached to the office, but upon other considerations. The case is the same in principle with that of Barry vs. Mercein, above referred to, and the appeal to this Court, for tbe same reason, must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Kurtz v. Moffitt & Another, 115 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1885)
  • NEW Mexico ex rel. E. J. McLEAN & Co. v. Denver & RIO Grande R.R. Co., 203 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1906)
  • Sumi v. Young, 83 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1936)
    …hildren. The right to such custody cannot be measured in money. There is, therefore, no “value in controversy” on which appellate jurisdiction may he predicated. Barry v. Mercein, 5 Plow. 103, 119, 12 L.Ed. 70; DeKrafft v. Barney, 2 Black, 704, 714, 17 L.Ed. 350; In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 595, 10 S.Ct. 850, 34 L.Ed. 500; Leak v. Leak (C.C.A.9) 156 F. 473, 474. Hence, we conclude, jurisdiction of this appeal is not conferred by section 128 of the Judicial Code. Appellant contends that jurisdiction is conf…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw