The Court will not take jurisdiction of a case where, although
the whole property claimed by the lessor of the plaintiff in error
under a patent, and which was recovered in ejectment exceeded
$2,000, the title to a lot of ground, part of the whole tract,
which was of less value than $500, was only involved in the case
before the court.
Mr. Wickliffe moved to dismiss this cause, which was brought by
a writ of error from the Circuit Court of the District of Kentucky,
on the ground that the property in controversy was not of the value
of two thousand dollars; although the whole property owned by the
lessor of the plaintiff in error was under a patent, and which was
recovered in the ejectment, is one thousand acres, yet the title to
a lot in the Town of Falmouth of less value than $500, held under
the patent, is only involved in this case, and can only be affected
by the decision of this Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the
Court.
This is a writ of error to a judgment of the Court of the United
States, for the Seventh Circuit and the District of Kentucky
awarding restitution of lot No. 108, in the Town of Falmouth to the
defendants in error, who had been turned out of possession by
virtue of a writ of
habere facias possessionem issued on a
judgment in ejectment, in favor of the plaintiff in error.
Previous to the institution of the suit, the Town of Falmouth
had been laid out in pursuance of an act of assembly, and lot No.
108 had been sold and conveyed to George Hendricks. The law
establishing the Town of Falmouth directed that the lots should be
sold subject to the condition of making certain improvements
thereon within seven years, on failure to do which the trustees are
empowered to enter on any lot not improved and sell it again. These
improvements were not made on lot No. 108.
The defendant in error moves to quash the writ of error because
the matter in controversy is not of the value of $2,000. The motion
is resisted because the whole property which was recovered in the
ejectment may be considered as involved in this motion, since each
tenant may move separately for an award of restitution on the
supposition that the regularity of the proceedings under the law by
which the town
Page 26 U. S. 249
was established and the lots sold may be examined; on this
motion, the plaintiff in error has brought that subject into view
and has discussed it fully. But the Court is of opinion that the
question of title cannot be considered on this writ of error. The
Town of Falmouth was separated from the tract out of which it was
taken, and this lot was sold before the suit was instituted;
neither the trustees of the town nor the proprietors of the lot
were parties to that ejectment. The motion to award restitution
therefore involved nothing further than the lot to which the party
prayed to be restored, and as that is not of the value of $2,000,
the Court has no jurisdiction. The writ of error is to be
Dismissed.
Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction, it not
appearing that the value of the premises in this suit is
$2,000.