Bruce v. Manchester
| Decision Date | 05 April 1886 |
| Citation | 29 L.Ed. 990,117 U.S. 514,6 S.Ct. 849 |
| Parties | BRUCE and another v. MANCHESTER & K. R. R. 1 Filed |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
J. W. Fellows and F. W. Hackett, for motion.
F. A. Brooks, in opposition.
This suit, at the time of the decree appealed from, was by Alexander Bruce, a citizen of Illinois, and William Shepard, a citizen of Massachusetts, against the Manchester & Keene Railroad, a New Hampshire corporation, to collect interest due on certain bonds of the railroad by the foreclosure of a mortgage made to trustees to secure a series of bonds amounting in the aggregate to $500,000. There were other parties, both plaintiff and defendant, when the suit was begun, but a discontinuance was entered before the decree as to all but these. The bill was filed in behalf of the complainants and all other like creditors, not citizens of New Hampshire, who might come in and contribute to the expenses; but no such creditors had come in or connected themselves with the suit in any way at the time of the decree. The railroad filed an answer, and upon final hearing the bill was dismissed. The record shows that the complainant Bruce owned bonds for $7,500, on which interest was past due and unpaid to the amount of not more than $3,000, and Shepard $1,000 of bonds, on which not more than $400 of interest was due. After the bill was dismissed the complainants, Bruce and Shepard, took a joint appeal, which the railroad now moves to dismiss because the value of the matter in dispute does not exceed $5,000.
This motion must be granted. The case comes clearly within the rule established in Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578, S. C. 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 484, in which it was decided that the matter in dispute, on which our jurisdiction depends, is 'the matter which is directly in dispute in the particular cause in which the judgment or decree sought to be reviewed has been rendered,' and that we are not permitted, 'for the purpose of determining its sum or value, to estimate its collateral effect in a subsequent suit between the same or other parties.' Although the principal of the bonds owned by one of the complainants exceeds $5,000, the suit is brought to recover only the interest, which is less. These complainants are in no way authorized to represent the other bondholders. They sued for themselves, and all others in like situation who might join with them, but no one saw fit to join. They were allowed to proceed alone, and the payment to them of their interest would have been a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elliott v. Empire Natural Gas Co.
...value, to estimate its collateral effect in a subsequent suit between the same or other parties." In Bruce v. Manchester & Keene R. R., 117 U. S. 514, 516, 6 S. Ct. 849 (29 L. Ed. 990), action was brought by Bruce, a citizen of Illinois, and Shepard, a citizen of Massachusetts, to collect i......
-
Button v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
...U.S. 564, 2 S.Ct. 875, 27 L.Ed. 828; City of Opelika City v. Daniel, 109 U.S. 108, 3 S.Ct. 70, 27 L.Ed. 873; Bruce v. Manchester & K. R. R., 117 U.S. 514, 6 S.Ct. 849, 29 L.Ed. 990. The defendant contends, however, that under an unusual rule which exists under the law of Kentucky in cases o......
-
Enger v. Northern Finance Corporation
...27 L. Ed. 249, and cases there cited; Opelika City v. Daniel, 109 U. S. 108 3 S. Ct. 70, 27 L. Ed. 873; Bruce v. Manchester & Keene Railroad, 117 U. S. 514 6 S. Ct. 849, 29 L. Ed. 990; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 24 27, 7 S. Ct. 1066, 30 L. Ed. The defendant, however, seems to feel that t......
-
Board of Trustees of Whitman College v. Berryman
... ... Marshall, 106 U.S. 578, ... 1 Sup.Ct. 484, 27 L.Ed. 249; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 ... U.S. 27, 7 Sup.Ct. 1066, 30 L.Ed. 1083; Bruce and Another ... v. Manchester & Keene Rd., 117 U.S. 514, 6 Sup.Ct. 849, ... 29 L.Ed. 990 ... In the ... latter case it was held: ... ...