Street v. Ferry

Supreme Court

Street v. Ferry

119 U.S. 385, 7 S. Ct. 231, 30 L. Ed. 439, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 2002

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 13, 1886

Docket1079

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 119 U.S. 385 (Street v. Ferry) 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

Street v. Ferry, 119 U.S. 385, 7 S. Ct. 231, 30 L. Ed. 439, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 2002 (1886).

Pincite

Opinion

• Me. Chief Justice "Waite

delivered the opinion of the .court.

This appeal was taken since.the act of March 3,-1885, c, 355,-23. Stat. 443, went, into effect. That statute,- by § 1, limits-appeals to this court from' the Supreme Courts of the Territories and from the Supreme Court of the District -of Columbia to cases where the value of the matter in dispute exceeds five thousand dollars* except, by' § 2, the validity of a patent or copyright is involved, or the validity of a treaty or a statute, or an authority exercised under the United States js drawn in question. • The value here referred to is the value at the time .of the final judgment or deóree, not at the time of .the appeal Or, writ of error. Nothing whatever appears on -the face of the record proper to... show the value of the matter in dispute,. The judgment .was rendered July 22, 1886, and an appeal allowed the same day iñ open, court.' Affidavits of value were filed in the court foeloúr-after this- allowance, and these affidavits were sent here with the transcript. Other affidavits have. been filed in this court since the case was docketed, and, on consideration of the whole, we are satisfied that the value is not sufficient to give us jurisdiction. The appellant himself puts the' value of the land alone at only four thousand dollars, and the fair inference, from all the affidavits taken together, is, that the improvements on the lapd are worth much less than one thousand dollars. A large number of witnesses, who seem to--be well qualified to judge of the value, put it' at from $3000 to $3500, including all improvements.

The patent referred to in the second section-of the act is a. patent for an invention, or discovery, not a patent for land.

The motion to dismiss is gromted.

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

• Me. Chief Justice "Waite

delivered the opinion of the .court.

This appeal was taken since.the act of March 3,-1885, c, 355,-23. Stat. 443, went, into effect. That statute,- by § 1, limits-appeals to this court from' the Supreme Courts of the Territories and from the Supreme Court of the District -of Columbia to cases where the value of the matter in dispute exceeds five thousand dollars* except, by' § 2, the validity of a patent or copyright is involved, or the validity of a treaty or a statute, or an authority exercised under the United States js drawn in question. • The value here referred to is the value at the time .of the final judgment or deóree, not at the time of .the appeal Or, writ of error. Nothing whatever appears on -the face of the record proper to... show the value of the matter in dispute,. The judgment .was rendered July 22, 1886, and an appeal allowed the same day iñ open, court.' Affidavits of value were filed in the court foeloúr-after this- allowance, and these affidavits were sent here with the transcript. Other affidavits have. been filed in this court since the case was docketed, and, on consideration of the whole, we are satisfied that the value is not sufficient to give us jurisdiction. The appellant himself puts the' value of the land alone at only four thousand dollars, and the fair inference, from all the affidavits taken together, is, that the improvements on the lapd are worth much less than one thousand dollars. A large number of witnesses, who seem to--be well qualified to judge of the value, put it' at from $3000 to $3500, including all improvements.

The patent referred to in the second section-of the act is a. patent for an invention, or discovery, not a patent for land.

The motion to dismiss is gromted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 U.S. 385, 7 S. Ct. 231, 30 L. Ed. 439, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 2002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/street-v-ferry-scotus-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack