Jurisdiction to review, when dependent on amount, is determined
by the amount directly, and not contingently, involved in the
decree sought to be reviewed.
A writ of error will not lie to review a judgment of the Court
of Appeals of the District of Columbia confirming assessments for
less than $5,000, even though plaintiff in error may be
contingently liable in case the judgment stands for other
assessments exceeding $5,000, in the same proceeding on other lots
disposed of pending the proceeding.
Writ of error to review 31 App.D.C. 130 dismissed.
The facts, which involve the validity of certain assessments in
the District of Columbia, and the jurisdiction of this Court to
review judgments of the Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia, are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE LURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case was argued with the case of
Columbia Heights
Realty Co. v. The Commissioners of the District of Columbia,
and the questions presented are substantially the same. The
plaintiffs in error were interested as owners of certain lots or
parts of lots involved in the general
Page 217 U. S. 562
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 for 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 Feb. 9, 1893,
27 Stat. 436, c. 74.
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,
162 U. S.
328.
The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction must be granted,
and the writ is accordingly
Dismissed.
