TROY
v.
EVANS
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 a writ of error in a debt collection case involving bonds held as security, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to establish that the underlying debt exceeded $5,000, the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal court appeals at that time. Although the bonds in aggregate exceeded $5,000, only the amount actually owed by the debtor was relevant to jurisdiction, and the record did not conclusively establish that this sum met the threshold.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The writ of error in this case was sued out by the defendants below, upon a judgment rendered May 27,1875, for $3,926.96. If there were nothing more, it would be clear that we have no jurisdiction. The bonds sued upon, however, were payable in instalments, and amounted in the aggregate to more than $5,000, while the instalments due when the judgment was rendered were less. The plea upon which the case was tried put in issue only the ownership of the bonds and the right of the plaintiffs to bring the suit, the claim being that one Jones, a citizen of Alabama, was the real owner, and that the plaintiffs held them only as security for a debt which he owed, less in amount than the bonds. The amount of the debt nowhere appears in the pleadings, though it is admitted that the bonds were held as security only.
Conceding all that is claimed in the argument opposing this-motion, to wit, that the judgment in this action will be conclusive in another by the present plaintiffs upon the same bonds as to the liability of the defendants upon .the bonds to the. extent of the debt of Jones, for which they are held, still our jurisdiction cannot be maintained, unless it also appears that this debt exceeds $5,000. Prima facie, the judgment against a defendant in an action for money is the measure of our jurisdiction in his behalf. This prima facie case continues until the contrary is shown; and, if jurisdiction is invoked because of the collateral effect a judgment may have in another action, it must appear that the judgment conclusively settles the rights of the parties in a matter actually in dispute, the sum or value of which exceeds the required amount. No issue was raised here as to how much was actually due the plaintiffs from Jones, and the testimony is by no means clear upon that subject. Certainly there is nothing' in the record which concludes the parties upon that question; and, as it rests upon the plaintiff in error to establish our jurisdiction affirmatively before we can proceed, the writ is
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Belton v. Summer, 31 Fla. 139 (Fla. 1893)…Gaines vs. Fuentes, 92 U, S., 10. Nevertheless, in a collateral proceeding, its effect as prima facie evidence of the validity of the will as to real property may be overcome by other evidence .-showing the will to have been invalid. Troy vs. Evans, 97 U. S. 1; Kelly vs. Jackson, 6 Peters, 622. Now the effect of the probate as prima facie evidence •of the validity of the will of Adam G. Summer has been overcome, and the invalidity of said will established by facts which are stated in the bill and admitted…
-
New England Mortg. Sec. Co. v. GAY, 145 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1892)…ment was made that the defendant might lose the whole' benefit of [*131] his property by the forced sale under the execution, but the court held that it did not depend upon the amount of any contingent loss, and dismissed the bill. In Troy v. Evans, 97 U. S. 1, action was brought to recover certain instalments upon bonds, the aggregate of which bonds exceeded $5000, but the judgment was for less. The case was dismissed, although it appeared that the judgment would be conclusive in another action upon futu…
-
Johnson Co. v. Wharton, 152 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1894)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence