Davies v. Wells

• Decision Date: 22 December 1904
• Docket Number: 11.
• Citation: 134 F. 139
• Parties: DAVIES v. WELLS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

134 F. 139

DAVIES v. WELLS.

No. 11.

United States Circuit Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

December 22, 1904

W. D Ainey, for motion.

Charles H. Welles, opposed.

ARCHBALD District Judge.

This is an action of ejectment for three lots of land in the village of Dundaff, brought in the common pleas of Susquehanna county by T. J. Davies against Helen E. Wells, and removed by the latter into this court on the ground of diverse citizenship. A motion is made by the plaintiff to remand the case: (1) Because the amount in controversy is not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction and (2) because, as the case stood when the removal was made there were two defendants of record, one of whom was a citizen of Pennsylvania, and it was not alleged or shown that there was a separable controversy as to the removing party.

The value of the land is declared in the petition for removal to exceed $2,000, and, if there were nothing to call this in question, it would sufficiently establish the jurisdictional amount. It is argued that the controversy is not necessarily fixed by the value of the land, it being possible that only a fractional interest is involved, or that the action proceeds for the enforcement of purchase money or some other equity. But the plaintiff avers that he is the owner of the land, the title being in him, and not in the defendant; by which is to be understood the whole title, and not a part of it, which effectually disposes of any such contention. But the value put upon the property by the defendant is not conclusive and, having been traversed by the plaintiff, who swears that it does not exceed $1,500, it should have been established by the defendant by proof. 18 Encycl.Plead.& Pract. 374; Carson v. Dunham, 121 U.S. 421, 7 Sup.Ct. 1030, 30 L.Ed. 992; Wetmore v. Rymer, 169 U.S. 115, 18 Sup.Ct. 293, 42 L.Ed. 682. This is a jurisdictional fact, which cannot be left in doubt, as it must be where, as here, we have nothing more than the petition and answer, the one contradicting the other. I should not remand the case, however, on this ground without giving the defendant opportunity to supply the required proof, if there were not also another reason for doing so, which it does not seem possible to overcome. Upon proceeding to serve the writ of ejectment, the plaintiff found one Mary J. Edwards in possession of one of the three lots, and thereupon added her name as a defendant, and served her, in compliance with the...