Joseph Wheless v. City of St Louis 31
| Decision Date | 01 February 1901 |
| Docket Number | No. 161,161 |
| Citation | 45 L.Ed. 583,180 U.S. 379,21 S.Ct. 402 |
| Parties | JOSEPH WHELESS, William M. Reed, Halstead Burnet, et al., Appts. , v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al. Argued January 31 & |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In this case the jurisdiction of the circuit court was in issue, and the question of jurisdiction was certified.
The question was whether the matter in dispute exceeded, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $2,000. The circuit court held that jurisdiction did not exist, and dismissed the bill. 96 Fed. Rep. 865.
The suit was brought by Joseph Wheless and others against the city of St. Louis, the president of the board of public improvements of that city, and the Gilsonite Roofing & Paving Company, to restrain the city and the board from levying or assessing the costs and expenses of improving a public street whereon complainants' property abutted, against the property, and to enjoin the paving company from demanding or receiving from the city any special tax bills issued therefor. The certificate of the circuit court states the facts thus:
'That the above-entitled cause came on to be heard by the court at, to wit, the September, 1899, term of the court, upon the application for a temporary injunction, as prayed in the bill, it being alleged in said bill that complainants are severally the owners of certain and nearly all the lots of land abutting on Whittier street, between Washington boulevard and Finney avenue, in the city of St. Louis; that the defendant city, acting under the provisions of its charter and ordinances, had entered into a contract with the defendant paving company to improve said street in front of complainants' property, and said company was engaged in doing the work, which was a public improvement; that the cost of making said improvement is, according to the terms of said charter, ordinance, and contract, a charge upon complainants' abutting property, and is about to be levied and assessed against it as a special tax, according to the frontage of said lots on said street, and special tax bills are about to be issued separately against each lot of complainants, which would be liens upon their said property and subject the same to being sold to satisfy said special assessment; which assessment and levy, it is averred, are in violation of complainants' rights under the Federal Constitution. Wherefore an injunction was prayed to restrain said city from levying and assessing the cost of said public improvement against complainants' property and from issuing special tax bills against them for the same, and for a decree declaring said charter, ordinance, and contract provisions void; that the cost of said improvement, which was about to be assessed and levied against all the abutting property, is largely in excess of the sum of $10,000.
'Defendants filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, supported by an affidavit showing that the amount of special tax which would be assessed and levied against the property of any one of the complainants severally would not exceed $1,400, and would not be an amount equal to $2,000, and that hence the matter in dispute between the parties was not of the sum or value necessary to give jurisdiction to the circuit court of the United States, and that the bill should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
'Complainants demurred to the said plea and submitted the question of jurisdiction thus raised to the determination of the court, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elliott v. Empire Natural Gas Co.
...in one bill against distinct defendants claims no one of which reaches the jurisdictional amount. In Wheless v. St. Louis et al., 180 U. S. 379, 382, 21 S. Ct. 402, 403 (45 L. Ed. 583), owners of lots filed a bill to restrain the assessment against them of the cost and expense of improving ......
-
Jones v. Mutual Fidelity Co.
... ... affect the application of the rule. In Wheless v. St ... Louis, 180 U.S. 379, 21 Sup.Ct. 402, 45 L.Ed ... by Mr. Justice Hunt in Rees v. City of Watertown, 19 ... Wall. 107, 124, 22 L.Ed. 72, 'the ... now required by Section 2 of Chapter 31 of Acts of 1877 ... Sec. 3 ... Be it further ... ...
-
Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization
...56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135; compare KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 269, 57 S.Ct. 197, 81 L.Ed. 183. 9 Wheless v. St. Louis, 180¢u.S. 379, 21 S.Ct. 402, 45 L.Ed. 583; Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U.S. 594, 596, 36 S.Ct. 416, 60 L.Ed. 817; Scott v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 243, 40 S.Ct. 503, 64 L.......
-
Clark v. Paul Gray
...of the district court, and that those amounts cannot be added together to satisfy jurisdictional requirements. Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U.S. 379, 21 S.Ct. 402, 45 L.Ed. 583; Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U.S. 621, 36 S.Ct. 217, 60 L.Ed. 469; Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U.S. 594, 36 S.Ct. 416, 60$......