Parker v. Morrill
| Decision Date | 23 October 1882 |
| Parties | PARKER v. MORRILL |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Gideon D. Camden, for the motion.
D. D. Lord, opposed.
This is a motion to dismiss for the reason that it does not appear in the record or by affidavits that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds $5,000. The record shows that Willard Parker, Jr., the appellant, as the owner of one undivided twentieth part of a large tract of land in West Virginia, embracing within its boundaries several hundred thousand acres, filed his bill in equity against Willard Parker, Sr., as the owner of the remaining nineteen-twentieths, and Morrill, the appellee, for a partition as between himself and Parker, Sr., and to remove a cloud upon the title to a part of the tract caused by a claim set up by Morrill. Upon the hearing the court below dismissed the bill as to Morrill, and from a decree to that effect Parker, Jr., took this appeal. Parker, Sr., did not appear as an actor in the court below, and has not united in the appeal.
The lands claimed by Morrill are not described, either in the bill or in the answer of Morrill, otherwise than by reference to certain patents, under which he assumed to hold. These patents covered between fifty and sixty thousand acres. In one of the depositions it is shown that when the suit was begun Morrill claimed about 25,000 acres. The value of the property is nowhere stated. The whole tract in which Parker, Jr., claimed his undivided interest included very much more than the Morrill lands. On the eleventh of January, 1854, this whole tract was conveyed to Peter Clark by deed reciting a consideration of $3,090. Clark, on the twenty-ninth of March, 1854, conveyed it to William W. Campbell by deed, in which the consideration is stated to have been $8,000. On the fifth of May, 1858, Campbell conveyed to Parker, Sr., for a nominal consideration, and on the second of November, 1872, Parker, Sr., conveyed the one undivided twentieth to Parker, Jr., for $2,000. In his petition for this appeal, filed September 8, 1880, Parker, Jr., states the value of the lands claimed by Morrill to be over $2,000. Notice of the present motion was served on the counsel for the appellant in May last. The brief in support of the motion was filed here on the sixth of May. That of the appellant was filed on the seventh of October. Notwithstanding the dismissal was claimed on account of the value of the matter in dispute, no attempt has been made by the appellant to supply the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elliott v. Empire Natural Gas Co.
...sum or value, to estimate its collateral effect in a subsequent suit between the same or other parties." See, also, Parker v. Morrill, 106 U. S. 1, 1 S. Ct. 14, 27 L. Ed. 72. In Opelika City v. Daniel, 109 U. S. 108, 3 S. Ct. 70, 27 L. Ed. 873, the Supreme Court followed Elgin v. Marshall, ......
-
Simon v. House
...within the cognizance of the court, under the statute, only by the value of the property affected. ' Smith v. Adams, supra; Parker v. Morrill, 106 U.S. 1, 1 S.Ct. 14. Fuller v. Grand Rapids, 40 Mich. 395. It follows that the matter in dispute here is the tract of real estate described in th......
-
De La Torre v. National City Bank of New York
...to show the existence of jurisdictional amount in controversy where it did not otherwise appear in the record. Parker v. Morrill, 106 U.S. 1, 2, 1 S.Ct. 14, 27 L.Ed. 72; Wells v. Wilkins, 116 U.S. 393, 6 S.Ct. 600, 29 L.Ed. 671; Wilson v. Blair, 119 U.S. 387, 7 S.Ct. 230, 30 L.Ed. 441; Red ......
-
Cowell v. City Water Supply Co.
... ... Hoskins ... (C.C.) 38 F. 772; Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. New ... Jersey Zinc & Iron Co. (C.C.) 43 F. 545; Parker v ... Morrill, 106 U.S. 1, 1 Sup.Ct. 14, 27 L.Ed. 72; and ... Smith v. Adams, 130 U.S. 167, 175, 9 Sup.Ct. 566, 32 ... L.Ed. 895. If the ... ...