Potts v. Chumasero

Supreme Court

Potts v. Chumasero

92 U.S. 358, 23 L. Ed. 499, 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1766

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 31, 1876

Docket545

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 92 U.S. 358 (Potts v. Chumasero) 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

Potts v. Chumasero, 92 U.S. 358, 23 L. Ed. 499, 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1766 (1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

We have no jurisdiction in this case. Writs of error and *361 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.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

We have no jurisdiction in this case. Writs of error and *361 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 U.S. 358, 23 L. Ed. 499, 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potts-v-chumasero-scotus-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack