Seaver v. Bigelows
| Decision Date | 01 December 1866 |
| Citation | 5 Wall. 208,18 L.Ed. 595,72 U.S. 208 |
| Parties | SEAVER v. BIGELOWS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
SEAVER filed a creditor's bill against the defendants, in the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, setting forth a judgment against one of the defendants, for the sum of $839.48, and, he being insolvent, seeking to get satisfaction of it from a fund exceeding $2000 in the hands of another of the defendants who, it was charged, was in possession of the fund by fraud. Plimpton, who joined in the bill, set out a judgment for the sum of $988.47. The suit went to issue, and was heard on the pleadings and proofs, and a decree entered dismissing the bill. The case being now here on appeal, a question arose whether this court had jurisdiction, as the statute limiting appeals from the Circuit Court is confined to cases where the sum in dispute exceeds $2000, exclusive of costs.1
Mr. E. S. Smith, in support of the jurisdiction:
The act of Congress allows appeals in equity, when the matter in dispute shall exceed the sum or value of two thousand dollars. The judgment is not the amount, as that is not in dispute, it having been fixed by the court at law. Therefore, the value of the property must be the sum in controversy. A decree, in cases of this kind, need not state the amount to be paid. The prayer in the bill, is to apply the property, fraudulently disposed of, to pay the sums fixed by the judgments. Freeman v. Howe2 is decisive. It was there held, that a bill filed on the equity side of the court to restrain or regulate judgments, or suits at law, in the same court, and thereby prevent any injustice or inequitable advantage, under mesne or final process, is not an original suit, but ancillary and dependent; supplementary merely to the original suit, out of which it had arisen.
The bill, in this case, was not filed as an original suit, but to aid the judgment at law.
Mr. Thomas Hoyne, contra.
The judgment creditors who have joined in this bill have separate and distinct interests, depending upon separate and distinct judgments. In no event could the sum in dispute of either party exceed the amount of their judgment, which is less than $2000. The bill being dismissed, each fails in obtaining payment of his demands. If it had been sustained, and a decree rendered in their favor, it would only have been for the amount of the judgment of each. We say nothing as to the costs, as the statute excludes them on the question of jurisdiction.
It is true, the litigation involves a common fund, which exceeds the sum of $2000, but neither of the judgment creditors has any interest in it exceeding the amount of his judgment. Hence, to sustain an appeal in this class of cases, where separate and distinct interests are in dispute, of an amount less than the statute requires, and where the joinder of parties is permitted by the mere indulgence of the court, for its convenience, and to save expense, would be giving a privilege to the parties not common to other litigants, and which is forbidden by law.
The case is analogous to proceedings in admiralty in behalf of seamen for wages, and salvors for salvage, where the practice of the court is well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zahn v. International Paper Company 8212 888
...v. Field, 138 U.S. 464, 11 S.Ct. 419, 34 L.Ed. 1044 (1891); Russell v. Stansell, 105 U.S. 303, 26 L.Ed. 989 (1882); Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208, 18 L.Ed. 595 (1867); Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 Pet. 4, 8 L.Ed. 846 (1834); Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet. 143, 8 L.Ed. 349 (1832). Snyder v. Harris, ......
-
Dewar v. Brooks
...he was separately liable. It is clear that under the rulings in Ballard Paving Co. v. Mulford, 100 U.S. 147 148 25 L.Ed. 591; Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208 (72 U.S.) 18 L.Ed. 595; Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. 347 13 L.Ed. 1017; Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 Pet. 4 8 L.Ed. 846, and Oliver v. Alexander......
-
Abs Ins., Ltd. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
...v. Waterman, 106 U.S. 265, 1 S.Ct. 131, 27 L.Ed. 115 (1882); Russell v. Stansell, 105 U.S. 303, 26 L.Ed. 989 (1881); Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208, 18 L.Ed. 595 (1866)). In this particular case, an ownership dispute broke out over a cotton plantation after the death of one of its On appea......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Smith
...Telegraph Co., 161 U.S. 96, 16 Sup.Ct. 506, 40 L.Ed. 630; Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U.S. 302, 22 Sup.Ct. 327, 46 L.Ed. 552; Seaver v. Bigelow, 72 U.S. 208, 18 L.Ed. 595. the bill in this case does not assert distinct claims against several persons, and seek to aggregate them to make up the j......
-
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND THE COMMON-LAW SCOPE OF THE CIVIL ACTION.
...added). (26.) 100 U.S. 147 (1879). For an earlier case to that effect decided under the Judiciary Act of 1789, see Seaver v. Bigelow, 72 U.S. 208 (1866) (holding that the Court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because each appellant had a separate and distinct interest of less than......