THE GRACE GIRDLER
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 considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an admiralty appeal where the amount in controversy appeared to fall below the jurisdictional minimum of two thousand dollars. The Court held that it would allow the appellants an opportunity to submit affidavits proving the jurisdictional value of the claim within twenty days, establishing a liberal practice in admiralty cases to permit proof of jurisdictional amount in the appellate court. The motion to dismiss was ultimately denied after affidavits demonstrating sufficient value were discovered to have been on file.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
While it is true that the greater part of the loss fell upon Lockwood as owner of the Ariel, and her belongings, there is nothing in the record which shows that the damage sustained exceeded two thousand dollars. And this is essential to j urisdiction.
It is suggested, however, that, in point of fact, his share of the loss exceeded the jurisdictional sum. And it is the practice of this court in proper cases,* when it is claimed that the value in controversy gives jurisdiction, to allow an opportunity to make proof of the fact. And in admiralty eases, where the pleadings may be amended, and new evidence taken in the appellate court, a liberal practice in relation to appeals is specially warranted.†
An order will be made, therefore, allowing the appellants to make proof of jurisdictional value, by affidavits, and to file such proof with the clerk of the court within twenty days; in default of which, the cause will stand dismissed.
Note.
It subsequently appeared that the affidavits of value were actually on file at the time of the argument of the motion, though not before the court when the leave was given as above. The court thinking them sufficient, treated them on the discovery as if filed in pursuance of the leave. The motion to dismiss was therefore ultimately denied.
*
Rush v. Parker, 5 Cranch, 287 ; Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Peters, 634; but see Richmond v. Milwaukee, 21 Howard, 391.
†
Rice : M. and N. Railroad Co., 21 Howard, 85.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Louis v. S. Express Co., 108 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1883)
-
Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1903)…n controversy in the case before us, ascertained in conformity with the settled principles of the court, does not exceed two thousand dollars. We have, therefore, no jurisdiction of the writ of error, and it must be dismissed.” In The Grace Girdler, 6 Wall. 441, which was an appeal in admiralty : “ While it is true that the greater part of the loss fell upon Lockwood as owner of the Ariel, and her belongings, there is nothing in the record which shows that the damage sustained exceeded $2000: And this is e…
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634 (U.S. 1833)
- Rush v. Parker, 5 Cranch 287 (U.S. 1809)