POTTS ET AL.
v.
CHUMASERO 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.
The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute between Montana territorial attorneys and government officials over the validity of removing the territorial seat of government from Helena to Virginia City, because the matter in controversy was not money or a right measurable in monetary value, falling short of the $1,000 jurisdictional threshold required for writs of error from territorial supreme courts. The Court held that petitioners' claimed interest based on increased professional expenses and defendants' invocation of potential $3,000 in federal costs did not constitute the actual subject matter of the dispute, which concerned only the validity of governmental proceedings, and therefore dismissed the writ.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
We have no jurisdiction in this case. Writs of error and appeals lie to this court from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Montana only in cases where the value of the property or the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $1,000, and from decisions upon writs of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom. Rev. Stat., sect. 1909.
In Barry v. Mercien, 5 How. 120, it was held, Chief Justice Taney speaking for the court, that, in order to give us jurisdiction in a case dependent upon the amount in controversy, “ the matter in dispute must be money, or some right, the value of which in money can be calculated and ascertained.” This rule has been followed in many cases. Pratt v. Fitzhugh, 1 Black, 273; De Krafft v. Barry, 2 id. 714.
In the present case, the contest is not for money, or any right the value of which can be measured by money. The petitioners, to show that they have such a special interest in the question presented for adjudication as entitles them to commence and maintain the action, allege that they are attorneys and counsellors-at-law, and that, by the removal of the seat of government from Helena to Virginia City, their expenses will be increased while in attendance upon the courts pursuant to their professional engagements. But this is not the matter in controversy. The contest is as to the validity of certain proceedings for the removal of the seat of government for the Territory, The interest which the petitioners have in that contest is not in any sense property. Besides, they do not complain.
The defendants, .who are the plaintiffs in error here, do not claim to be personally interested pecuniarily in the litigation. They only state in their answer, that, if a removal is had, the United States will be put to an expense of $3,000. But in this proceeding they do not represent the United States. They are government officials; but they do not appear here in their official capacity. By a law of the Territory, it has been made their duty to canvass the votes cast at a Territorial election. In this they act for the people of the Territory, and not for the United States. They derive all their authority for this purpose from a law of the Territory, and not from a law of Congress. If a judgment is given against them, they will not lose any money; neither will the petitioners gain any from them.
Writ 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)…ons of the courts or judges of the Territoiy [*498] “ upon writs of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom,” clearly implies that writs of habeas corpus would not be included if not specially mentioned. See also Potts v. Chumasero, 92 U. S. 358; Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578, 580; Curtis on U. S. Courts, 65. From this review of the statutes and decisions, the conclusion is inevitable that a jurisdiction, conferred by Congress upon any-court of the United States, of suits at law or in e…
-
Youngstown Bank v. Hughes, 106 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1882)…mount in controversy, “ the matter in dispute must be money, or some right, the value of which, in money, can be calculated and ascertained.” To the same effect are Pratt v. Fitzhugh, 1 Black, 271; De Krafft v. Barney, 2 id. 704; Potts v. Chumasero, 92 U. S. 358, 361. The present suit is not for money, nór for anything the value of which can be measured by money. The bank has no interest in the taxes to be placed on the tax- duplicate. There is no property in dispute between the auditor and the bank. If th…
-
Whittemore v. Farrington, 234 F.2d 221 (9th Cir. 1956)…the Supreme Court of Hawaii, and that right cannot be measured in dollars and does not meet the ju [*225] risdictional requirement,6 Barry v. Mercein, 1847, 5 How. 103, 120, 46 U.S. 103, 120, 12 L.Ed. 70 (custody of child); Potts v. Chumasero, 1875, 92 U.S. 358, 23 L.Ed. 499; Kurtz v. Moffitt, 1885, 115 U.S. 487, 6 S.Ct. 148, 29 L.Ed. 458 (habeas corpus); Simms v. Simms, 1899, 175 U.S. 162, 20 S.Ct. 58, 44 L.Ed. 115 (divorce); Leon v. Torruella, 1 Cir., 1938, 99 F. 2d 851. It is argued that the measure of…
Authorities Cited
- Moffitt v. Garr, 1 Black 273 (U.S. 1861)