Eachus v. Hartwell

112 F. 564, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4717
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California
DecidedDecember 30, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 F. 564 (Eachus v. Hartwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eachus v. Hartwell, 112 F. 564, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4717 (circtsdca 1901).

Opinion

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

The amount of the assessment in question in this suit being less than $2,000, the bill must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. U. S. v. Sayward, 160 U. S. 497, 16 Sup. Ct. 371, 40 L. Ed. 508; Fishback v. Telegraph Co., 161 U. S. 100, 16 Sup. Ct. 506, 40 L. Ed. 630; Transfer Co. v. Pendergrass, 16 C. C. A. 585, 70 Fed. 1; Wheless v. City of St. Rouis (C. C.) 96 Fed. 865. There is nothing tó the contrary in the case of Woodside v. Ciceroni, 35 C. C. A. 177, 93 Fed. 1, where it was held that in a suit to quiet title, or to remove a cloud therefrom, it is not the value of the defendant’s claim which is the amount of the controversy, but the whole of the real estate to which the claim extends.

Injunction denied, and demurrer sustained, and bill dismissed, at •complainant’s cost.

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

Related

Risty v. Chicago, R. I. &. P. Ry. Co.
297 F. 710 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 F. 564, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eachus-v-hartwell-circtsdca-1901.