Columbian Insurance Company v. Wheelright
Citation | 20 U.S. 534,7 Wheat. 534,5 L.Ed. 516 |
Parties | The COLUMBIAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. WHEELRIGHT et al |
Decision Date | 01 February 1822 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.
March 15th.
In this case, which was argued by Mr. Jones, for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Swann, for the defendants in error,a the COURT determined that a writ of error would lie under the act relating to the District of Columbia, which is similar in its provisions to the judiciary act of 1789, c. 20. sec. 22., to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court, awarding a peremptory mandamus, to admit the defendants in error to the offices of directors in the Columbian Insurance Company, and directed Mr. Jones to produce affidavits as to the value of the matter in controversy. But it not appearing that it amounted to one thousand dollars, the sum required to give this Court appellate jurisdiction from the final judgments or decrees of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, the Court afterwards directed the writ of error to be quashed. The Court was of opinion that there was nothing in controversy but the value of the office, and that its value must be ascertained by the salary.
a He cited Bac. Abr. tit. Mandamus. 8 Mod. 27. 1 P. Wms. 348.
Although, therefore, a writ of error might issue to a judgment awarding a peremptory mandamus to restore to office where the matter in controversy was sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Court, it could not regularly issue in this case.
Writ of error quashed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Whitney
...the salary during the term of the office would exceed the sum named in the statute defining its appellate jurisdiction. Columbian Ins. Co. v. Wheelright, 7 Wheat. 534; U. S. v. Addison, 22 How. 174. It is often said that the granting or refusing of a writ of prohibition is discretionary, an......
-
United States State of South Carolina v. Seymour
...of which can be estimated and ascertained in money, and which appears by the record to be of he requisite pecuniary value. Insurance Co. v. Wheelright, 7 Wheat. 534; Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487, 6 Sup. Ct. 148; Street v. Ferry, 119 U. S. 385, 7 Sup. Ct. 231; Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 16......
-
Dryden v. Swinbubn.
...§10; Id. p. 267, §9; Id. p. 351, §8; Id. 352, §10; Acts 1877, ch. 50, §L; 1 Greenl. Ev., §§6, 7; 1 Abb. U. S. Pr. 336, 337; 22 How. 174; 7 Wheat, 534; 5 Curtis 316; 2 W. Va. 425; 4 W. Va. 380; Acts 1872-3, ch. 118, §§30, 31, 32; Id. ch. 13, §9; Leading Cases on Elections 144, 146, 150; 20 G......
-
Dryden v. Swinburn
... ... In the ... Columbia Insurance Co. v. Wheelright et al., 7 ... Wheat. 534, where the controversy was ... ...