The jurisdictional value referred to in c. 355, 23 Stat. 443, is
the value at the time of the final judgment or decree, not at the
time of the appeal or writ of error.
The patent referred to in the second section of the act is a
patent for an invention or discovery, not a patent for land.
After examining affidavits in the cause filed in the court below
after allowance of appeal, and in this Court since the case was
docketed, the Court is satisfied that the value of the land in
dispute is not sufficient to give jurisdiction.
This was an action for the recovery of real estate. Judgment for
plaintiff and appeal. The appellee moved to dismiss
Page 119 U. S. 386
the appeal on the ground that the value of the premises in
dispute did not exceed five thousand dollars, and also to affirm
the judgment below.
MR. 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 $5,000, 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 is drawn in question. The value here referred to is the
value at the time of the final judgment or decree, 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 in open court. Affidavits of value were filed
in the court below 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 $4,000, and the fair inference, from all the
affidavits taken together is that the improvements on the land are
worth much less than $1,000. A large number of witnesses who seem
to be well qualified to judge of the value put it at from $3,000 to
$3,500, 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 granted.