Friend v. Wise, 111 U.S. 797 (1884)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
Friend v. Wise, 111 U.S. 797 (1884)Friend v. Wise
Submitted April 21, 1884
Decided May 5, 1884
111 U.S. 797
Syllabus
In ejectment in which several defendants are joined who hold separate tracts adversely to the plaintiff, this Court will not dismiss the writ of error because each separate tract is not of the jurisdictional value if their combined values are sufficient to give jurisdiction.
Motion to dismiss, with which a motion to affirm was united.
Opinions
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus In ejectment in which several defendants are joined who hold separate tracts adversely to the plaintiff, this Court will not dismiss the writ of error because each separate tract is not of the jurisdictional value if their combined values are sufficient to give jurisdiction. Motion to dismiss, with which a motion to affirm was united. MR. JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court. Page 111 U. S. 798 These motions are denied. The value of the two sections of land which are in dispute is conceded to be more than $5,000. The complaint alleges a joint entry and ouster, and answer does not set up separate claims to distinct parcels of the land by the several defendants. The judgment for the recovery of the possession is against all the defendants jointly. In this respect, the case is entirely different from those of Tupper v. Wise and Lynch v. Bailey, 110 U. S. 398. We have jurisdiction therefore. The questions arising on the merits are, some of them, of a character that ought not to be disposed of on a motion to affirm.
U.S. Supreme Court
Friend v. Wise, 111 U.S. 797 (1884) Friend v. Wise Submitted April 21, 1884 Decided May 5, 1884 111 U.S. 797 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITEDSTATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus In ejectment in which several defendants are joined who hold separate tracts adversely to the plaintiff, this Court will not dismiss the writ of error because each separate tract is not of the jurisdictional value if their combined values are sufficient to give jurisdiction. Motion to dismiss, with which a motion to affirm was united. MR. JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court. Page 111 U. S. 798 These motions are denied. The value of the two sections of land which are in dispute is conceded to be more than $5,000. The complaint alleges a joint entry and ouster, and answer does not set up separate claims to distinct parcels of the land by the several defendants. The judgment for the recovery of the possession is against all the defendants jointly. In this respect, the case is entirely different from those of Tupper v. Wise and Lynch v. Bailey, 110 U. S. 398. We have jurisdiction therefore. The questions arising on the merits are, some of them, of a character that ought not to be disposed of on a motion to affirm.
Search This Case
