Carr v. Fife

• Decision Date: 04 March 1895
• Docket Number: No. 215,215
• Citation: 15 S.Ct. 427,156 U.S. 494,39 L.Ed. 508
• Parties: CARR v. FIFE et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

156 U.S. 494

15 S.Ct. 427

39 L.Ed. 508

CARR

v FIFE et al.

No. 215.

March 4, 1895.

In the district court of the Second judicial district of Washington Territory, in April, 1887, Anthony P. Carr filed a bill of complaint against W. H. Fife and others, including the executors of Edward S. Smith, deceased, seeking to set aside a patent of the United States to one Robert E. Sproul, issued on December 13, 1875, granting certain lands of the United States, lying in the county of Pierce, and to have the defendants, who derived their titles to parts and parcels of said lands from the said Sproul, declared to hold the same in trust for the said plaintiff, and that they be required to execute conveyances thereof to the said plaintiff.

The defendants appeared, and put in an answer and a cross bill, to which the plaintiff demurred. On August 7, 1888, the demurrer to the answer was overruled, and that to the cross bill was sustained. An examiner was appointed, and evidence was put in; and on November 25, 1888, the cause was put down for hearing in the said district court of the Second judicial district of Washington Territory, and was submitted for decision on December 17, 1888. But before any decision was rendered the territory was admitted into the Union as a state. It was thereupon stipulated that the cause should be submitted to the superior court of Pierce county, state of Washington, on the pleadings, evidence, and briefs of counsel. Before the said superior court of Pierce county took any action the cause was, on May 26, 1890, at the instance of the defendants, under the provisions of section 23 of the act approved February 22, 1889 (25 Stat. 683), transferred to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Washington. On July 28, 1890, the plaintiff in the action moved the circuit court to remand the cause to the superior court of Pierce county, which motion was overruled, as was likewise a subsequent motion or petition to have the cause tried by the circuit judge, or, if he were unable to sit, by the district judge for the district of Oregon. On January 28, 1891, a final decree was entered, dismissing the bill. 44 Fed. 713. A motion was made February 10, 1891, to vacate the decree and remand the cause to the superior court of Pierce county, upon the alleged grounds that the same had been improperly removed, and that the circuit court had not acquired jurisdiction thereof, because it had not been made to appear at the time of such removal that the matter in dispute exceeded, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $2,000. The circuit court permitted affidavits to be filed on behalf of the defendants, averring that the matter in dispute largely exceeded the amount necessary to give the court jurisdiction, and then overruled the motion to vacate the decree and remand the cause. 45 Fed. 209. An appeal was then allowed to this court.

John Arthur, Thomas Carroll, and Heber J. May, for appellant.

Galusha Parsons, for appellees.

Mr. Justice SHIRAS, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

The ninth specification of error complains of the refusal of the court below to remand the cause to the superior court of Pierce county, upon the showing that, after the admission of the state of Washington, it had been stipulated by the counsel of the respective parties that said cause might be tried in said superior court. But the record shows that the reasons assigned in the court below for the motion to remand did not mention such a stipulation, and it is out of time and place to urge it in this court.

The tenth assignment asserts want of jurisdiction in the circuit court, at the time of entering the final decree, because the record did not contain a specific allegation that the matter in dispute exceeded the sum of $2,000. If the record were defective in the particular mentioned, we think that the amendment by affidavits, disclosing that the value of the matter in dispute largely exceeded the jurisdictional amount, cured the defect. The procedure would have been more formal if the decree had been set aside, and renewed after the amendment had been made; but the term at which the decree was entered had not ended, so that the court still had power to permit an amendment of the record, and we do not feel compelled to reverse the decree because of the manner in which the court below exercised its power of amendment. Besides, it is not clear that the record was defective in the respect claimed. The suit was not one to recover a sum of money, but to decide a question of title to a considerable tract of land, and the plaintiff put in evidence in support of his claim,—and, of course, before the decree was entered,—tending to show that the land was worth more than $10,000; and if it be competent, as has always been held, to show by ex parte affidavits the amount of the value of the matter in dispute, it would seem that evidence to the same effect, deliberately put in by the very party now suggesting the defect, should be regarded as sufficient. It is also observable that the plaintiff, in his petition for an appeal, averred that the value of the property in dispute exceeded the sum of $10,000; and while, doubtless, that allegation, made for the purpose of showing that this court has jurisdiction on appeal, would not, of itself, supply the defect in the record of the circuit court, it is convincing that in point of fact the land in dispute was worth more than $2,000, and that the plaintiff was not injured by the action of the court in permitting the record to be amended by affidavits supplying the formal averments of value.

Another error assigned is to the refusal of the court to direct that the cause should be tried by the Honorable Lorenzo Sawyer, circuit judge, or, in the event that it be found inconvenient for the circuit judge to try the cause, that the same be certified to the adjacent circuit of Oregon. The basis of this motion was an affidavit made by the plaintiff alleging that the district...