John Shields, Appellant v. Isaac Thomas and Others

• Decision Date: 01 December 1854
• Citation: John Shields, Appellant v. Isaac Thomas and Others, 58 U.S. 3, 17 How. 3, 15 L.Ed. 93 (1854)
• Parties: JOHN G. SHIELDS, APPELLANT, v. ISAAC THOMAS AND OTHERS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

58 U.S. 3

17 How. 3

15 L.Ed. 93

JOHN G. SHIELDS, APPELLANT, v. ISAAC THOMAS AND OTHERS.

December Term, 1854

THIS was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of Iowa.

Mr. Platt Smith moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, as the amount of none of the several decrees was for $2,000, and referred to the case of Oliver et al. v. Alexander et al. 6 Peters, 143.

The motion was opposed by Mr. Gillett.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the decree of the district court of the United States, exercising the powers of a circuit court for the district of Iowa. A motion has been made on behalf of

Isaac Thomas, one of the appellees, to dismiss it upon the ground that the sum in controversy with him is less than two thousand dollars.

The facts in the case may be stated in a few words, so far as they are material to the decision of the motion.

John Goldsberry, of Kentucky, died intestate, Leaving a large personal estate, to which the present appellees, together with other persons named in the proceedings, were entitled as his legal representatives, in the proportions set out in the proceedings. The widow of Goldsberry obtained letters of administration on his estate, and afterwards intermarried with Shields, the appellant, who thereby obtained possession of the property of the deceased.

The representatives of John Goldsberry, (of whom Isaac Thomas, in right of his wife, is one,) filed a bill in the chancery court of Kentucky, against Shields, charging that he had converted to his own use a large amount of the property, to which these representatives were entitled. And in that proceeding they obtained a decree against him for a large sum of money, the shares of the respective complainants being apportioned to them in the decree; and the appellant was directed to pay to each the specific sum to which he was entitled, as his proportion of the property misappropriated by Shields.

The appellant (Shields) lived in Iowa when this decree was made; and the present appellees, who are a portion of the representatives of John Goldsberry, united in the bill in equity now before us, to enforce the decree of the Kentucky court, and praying that Shields might be compelled to pay to them respectively the several sums decreed in their favor in the proceedings in Kentucky; and they obtained the decree in question, according to the prayer of their bill.

The whole...