Nearly two years after the entry of a decree dismissing a hill
in equity relating to the title to real estate, the complainant,
without notice to the respondent, filed his affidavit to show that
its value was more than $5,000, appealed to this Court, and the
appeal was allowed below and was entered in this Court. The
respondent thereupon filed counter-affidavits in the court below,
and, after notice to the complainant, moved to set aside the appeal
upon the ground that the value of the property was shown to be less
than $5,000. The complainant was present at the hearing of this
motion, which resulted in an order vacating the order allowing the
appeal. The respondent as appellee in this Court, on all these
facts as shown by the original and supplemental records, moved to
dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Held that
under the circumstances it was no more than right that this Court
should consider the subsequent affidavits, and that they showed
that the amount in controversy was not sufficient to give this
Court jurisdiction, and that therefore the appeal must be
dismissed.
Red Fiver Cattle Company v. Needham, 137 U.
S. 632, affirmed and applied to the circumstances of
this case.
The Court stated the case as follows:
On April 29, 1884, appellant filed his bill in the Circuit Court
of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas alleging
that he was the equitable owner of lot 10, in block 125, in the
Town of Hot Springs, Arkansas; that the legal title stood in the
name of defendant, and praying that she be adjudged a trustee for
his benefit, and ordered to convey the premises to him. On the
final hearing, a decree was entered dismissing the bill. Nearly two
years thereafter, without notice to the appellee and on the single
affidavit of appellant that the property was worth over $5,000, an
appeal was allowed. Subsequently, and at the same term, the
appellee filed in the circuit court a motion to set aside the order
allowing an appeal, and, to sustain her motion,
Page 141 U. S. 558
the affidavits of sixteen citizens of Hot Springs, among them
the collector of taxes and sheriff and several real estate brokers,
showing that the value of the property was not to exceed $3,500,
and probably not over $2,500. Upon this testimony, the circuit
court made an order setting aside and vacating the allowance of an
appeal, with leave to the appellant to renew his motion therefor,
and file additional affidavits as to the value of the property.
Appellant took no further action. Prior, however, to the filing of
this motion, the citation had been served on appellee and the
record filed in this Court. The appellee now moves to dismiss the
appeal on the ground that there is not $5,000 involved in the
controversy.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after stating the facts as above, delivered
the opinion of the Court.
The motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained. Upon the
entire testimony finally presented to the circuit court and
transmitted in the record, original and supplemental, to this
Court, the proof is overwhelming that the value of the property did
not exceed $5,000, and this positive testimony is reinforced by all
that appears in the case in respect to its situation and condition.
There is little room for doubt on this matter, notwithstanding the
opinion of appellant that the property is worth over $5,000. It is
not in the power of the circuit court to determine the extent and
limits of our jurisdiction, for that is a matter which this Court
must finally decide for itself. The practice which is to be
pursued, and the rules which are to control, have been clearly and
fully stated by THE CHIEF JUSTICE in the recent case of
Red
River Cattle Company v. Needham, 137 U.
S. 632, in which this Court, while deciding that where
the value is not definitely determined by the pleadings or decree,
it should generally be settled in the first instance by the circuit
court upon notice and testimony,
Page 141 U. S. 559
and not upon additional testimony here, also held that the
showing made in that case in the circuit court by affidavits was
not sufficient to establish a value in excess of $5,000, and
therefore dismissed the writ of error. In this case, by a like
showing, the value clearly did not exceed $5,000, and therefore we
have no jurisdiction. This is not like the case of
Gage v.
Pumpelly, 108 U. S. 164,
where the affidavits left the matter doubtful, and therefore we
declined to dismiss the appeal which had been allowed by the
circuit court.
Nor is it sufficient answer to this that the circuit court had
no power to set aside the order allowing an appeal after the appeal
had been perfected and the record filed here,
Keyser v.
Farr, 105 U. S. 265, for
under the circumstances it is no more than right that we should
consider these subsequent affidavits. The appellant was present at
the hearing of this motion. It does not appear that he raised any
question as to the power of the court to entertain it, and he was
given leave to file additional affidavits if he desired. All these
matters, including the affidavits, are presented to this Court by a
supplemental record brought up by a stipulation of parties. While
the order setting aside the allowance of an appeal may have been
ineffectual because the case had passed out of that into this
Court, yet these affidavits of value, one by the plaintiff and
sixteen by the witnesses of the defendant, were all filed in that
court, filed for the purpose of determining the right to an appeal,
and have all come regularly before us, and are presented for our
consideration. Although in a doubtful case we shall not disturb the
ruling of a circuit court granting or vacating an appeal, yet when
we are fully satisfied that the amount in controversy is not
sufficient to give us jurisdiction, we ought not to attempt an
inquiry into the merits of the case which is sought to be appealed.
Unless we exercise a supervising power over these matters, many
cases might be thrust upon our consideration through the
inattention of the trial court or the mistake or wrong of the
defeated party which are not in fact within our jurisdiction. Upon
the testimony which is called to our attention by the action of the
circuit court and the certificate
Page 141 U. S. 560
of the circuit clerk in such manner that we cannot shut our eyes
to it, it is obvious that the amount in controversy is not
sufficient to give us jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, it
would be sacrificing substance to form and assuming a jurisdiction
which we do not have to hold that because this testimony did not
get before the trial court in time for its primary action, it must
be wholly ignored by us. It reaches us before we are called upon to
act, and comes to us from that court. We hold that, under all the
showing that is presented, the amount in controversy is not
sufficient to give us jurisdiction, and therefore the appeal must
be and is
Dismissed.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY and MR. JUSTICE GRAY did not hear the
argument or take part in the decision of this case.
