Columbian Ins. Co. v. Wheelright

20 U.S. 534, 5 L. Ed. 516, 7 Wheat. 534, 1822 U.S. LEXIS 274
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 21, 1822
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 20 U.S. 534 (Columbian Ins. Co. v. Wheelright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Columbian Ins. Co. v. Wheelright, 20 U.S. 534, 5 L. Ed. 516, 7 Wheat. 534, 1822 U.S. LEXIS 274 (1822).

Opinion

20 U.S. 534 (1822)
7 Wheat. 534

THE COLUMBIAN INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
WHEELRIGHT et al.

Supreme Court of United States.

March 15, 1822.

In this case, which was argued by Mr. Jones, for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Swann, for the defendants in error.[a]

The COURT determined that a writ of error would lie under the act relating to the District of Columbia, which is similar in its provisions to the judiciary act of 1789, c. 20. sec. 22., to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court, awarding a peremptory mandamus, to admit the defendants in error to the offices of directors in the Columbian Insurance Company, and directed Mr. Jones to produce affidavits as to the value of the matter in controversy. But it not appearing that it amounted to one thousand dollars, the sum required to give this Court appellate jurisdiction from the final judgments or decrees of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, the Court afterwards directed the writ of error to be quashed. The Court was of opinion that there was nothing in controversy but the value of the office, and that its value must be ascertained by the salary.

*535 Although, therefore, a writ of error might issue to a judgment awarding a peremptory mandamus to restore to office where the matter in controversy was sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Court, it could not regularly issue in this case.

Writ of error quashed.

NOTES

[a] He cited Bac. Abr. tit. Mandamus. 8 Mod. 27. 1 P. Wms. 348.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carroll v. Somervell
116 F.2d 918 (Second Circuit, 1941)
Weston v. . Lumber Co.
77 S.E. 430 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Weston v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.
162 N.C. 165 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Carter County v. Schmalstig
127 F. 126 (Sixth Circuit, 1904)
Muhlenberg County v. Dyer
65 F. 634 (Sixth Circuit, 1895)
South Carolina v. Seymour
153 U.S. 353 (Supreme Court, 1894)
Smith v. Adams
130 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court, 1889)
Smith v. Whitney
116 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court, 1886)
Knight v. Ferris
6 Del. 283 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1881)
Dryden v. Swinburn
15 W. Va. 234 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1879)
Hammond v. People ex rel. Vacaro
32 Ill. 446 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1863)
United States Ex Rel. Crawford v. Addison
63 U.S. 174 (Supreme Court, 1860)
Decatur v. Paulding
39 U.S. 599 (Supreme Court, 1840)
Holmes v. Jennison
39 U.S. 540 (Supreme Court, 1840)
Kendall v. United States Ex Rel. Stokes
37 U.S. 524 (Supreme Court, 1838)
United States ex rel. Stokes v. Kendall
5 D.C. 163 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia, 1837)
United States v. Columbian Insurance Co. of Alexandria
25 F. Cas. 585 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia, 1821)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 U.S. 534, 5 L. Ed. 516, 7 Wheat. 534, 1822 U.S. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbian-ins-co-v-wheelright-scotus-1822.