Wallach v. Rudolph

Supreme Court

Wallach v. Rudolph

217 U.S. 561, 30 S. Ct. 587, 54 L. Ed. 883, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1983

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 16, 1910

Docket148

StatusPublished

This text of 217 U.S. 561 (Wallach v. Rudolph) 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

Wallach v. Rudolph, 217 U.S. 561, 30 S. Ct. 587, 54 L. Ed. 883, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1983 (1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Lurton

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was argued with the case of Columbia Heights Realty Company v. The Commissioners' of the District of Columbia, and the questions presented are substantially the same. The plaintiff's in error were interested as owners of certain lots or parts of lots involved in the gen *562 eral proceeding for the condemnation of property for the extension of Eleventh street, and an assessment for benefits was confirmed as.to the property, owned by them. They were allowed to prosecute a separate writ of error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia from so much of the award as affected them, where the judgment was affirmed, and from that affirmation this writ of error has been sued out. The aggregate of the amounts which affect these plaintiffs in error and in respect of which they have assigned error is only $2,450.

Jurisdictional limit upon writs of error and appeals to or from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia is $5,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See act of February 9, 1893, c. 74, 27 Stat. 434, 436.

To sustain the jurisdiction an affidavit has been filed to show that plaintiffs in error are contingently liable for an amount in excess of $5,000, if this judgment is sustained, by reason of like assessments in the same proceeding upon certain other lots or parts of lots, under other subdivision numbers and standing in the name of different owners, being lots disposed of pending the proceeding under an undertaking to remove the lien of any assessment for benefits which might be made herein. It does not follow as matter of law that such assessments against such other lots to other parties will be determined by this review. But, however this may be, “jurisdiction is to be determined by the amount directly involved in the decree appealed from, and not by any contingent demand which may be recovered, or any contingent loss which may be-sustained by either one of the parties through the probative effect of the decree, however direct its bearing upon such contingency.” Hollander v. Fechheimer, 162 U. S. 326, 328.

The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction must be granted, and the writ is accordingly

Dismissed.

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

Mr. Justice Lurton

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was argued with the case of Columbia Heights Realty Company v. The Commissioners' of the District of Columbia, and the questions presented are substantially the same. The plaintiff's in error were interested as owners of certain lots or parts of lots involved in the gen *562 eral proceeding for the condemnation of property for the extension of Eleventh street, and an assessment for benefits was confirmed as.to the property, owned by them. They were allowed to prosecute a separate writ of error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia from so much of the award as affected them, where the judgment was affirmed, and from that affirmation this writ of error has been sued out. The aggregate of the amounts which affect these plaintiffs in error and in respect of which they have assigned error is only $2,450.

Jurisdictional limit upon writs of error and appeals to or from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia is $5,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See act of February 9, 1893, c. 74, 27 Stat. 434, 436.

To sustain the jurisdiction an affidavit has been filed to show that plaintiffs in error are contingently liable for an amount in excess of $5,000, if this judgment is sustained, by reason of like assessments in the same proceeding upon certain other lots or parts of lots, under other subdivision numbers and standing in the name of different owners, being lots disposed of pending the proceeding under an undertaking to remove the lien of any assessment for benefits which might be made herein. It does not follow as matter of law that such assessments against such other lots to other parties will be determined by this review. But, however this may be, “jurisdiction is to be determined by the amount directly involved in the decree appealed from, and not by any contingent demand which may be recovered, or any contingent loss which may be-sustained by either one of the parties through the probative effect of the decree, however direct its bearing upon such contingency.” Hollander v. Fechheimer, 162 U. S. 326, 328.

The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction must be granted, and the writ is accordingly

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 U.S. 561, 30 S. Ct. 587, 54 L. Ed. 883, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallach-v-rudolph-scotus-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack