Altered by the 2d section of the act of March 3, 1803, chap. 40.
[Obsolete.]
to be held in such district. Provided nevertheless, That all such appeals from final decrees as aforesaid, from the district court of Maine, shall be made to the circuit court, next to be holden after each appeal in the district of Massachusetts.
Final decrees re-examined above 50 dollars.
Altered by the 2d section of the
act of March 3, 1803, chap. 40.
Sec. 22. And be it further enacted, That final decrees and judgments in civil actions in a district court, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of fifty dollars, exclusive of costs, may be reexamined, and reversed or affirmed in a circuit court, holden in the same district, upon a writ of error, whereto shall be annexed and returned therewith at the day and place therein mentioned, an authenticated transcript of the record, an assignment of errors, and prayer for reversal, with a citation to the adverse party, signed by the judge of such district court, or a justice of the Supreme Court, the adverse party having at least twenty days’ notice.[1]
And suits in equity, exceeding 2000 dollars in value.
- ↑ The rules, regulations and restrictions contained in the 21st and 22d sections of the judiciary act of 1789, respecting the time within which a writ of error shall be brought, and in what instances it shall operate as a supersedeas, the citation to the opposite party, the security to be given by the plaintiff in error, and the restrictions on the appellate court as to reversals in certain enumerated cases, are applicable to the act of 1803, and are to be substantially observed; except that where the appeal is prayed for at the same time when the decree or sentence is pronounced, a citation is not necessary.
The San Pedro, 2 Wheat. 132; 4 Cond. Rep. 65.
By the 2d section of the act of March 3, 1803, chap. 40, appeals are allowed from all final judgments or decrees in any of the District courts, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum or value of fifty dollars. Appeals from the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court are allowed when the sum or value, exclusive of costs exceeds $2000. This section repeals so much of the 19th and 20th sections of the act of 1789, as comes within the purview of those provisions.
By the provisions of the act of April 2, 1816, chap. 39, appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, are allowed when the matter in dispute in the cause exceeds $1000, exclusive of costs.
- ↑ The following cases have been decided on the questions which have arisen as to the value in controversy, in a case removed by writ of error or appeal.
The verdict and judgment do not ascertain the matter in dispute between the parties. To determine this, recurrence must be had to the original controversy; to the matter in dispute when the action was instituted. Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401; 1 Cond. Rep. 185.
Where the value of the matter in dispute did not appear in the record, in a case brought by writ of error, the court allowed affidavits to be taken to prove the same, on notice to the opposite party. The writ of error not to be a supersedeas. Course v. Stead’s Ex’ors, 4 Dall. 22; 1 Cond. Rep. 217; 4 Dall. 20; 1 Cond. Rep. 215.
The Supreme Court will permit viva voce testimony to be given of the value of the matter in dispute in a case brought up by a writ of error or by appeal. The United States v. The Brig Union et al., 4 Cranch, 216; 2 Cond. Rep. 91.
The plaintiff below claimed more than $2000 in his declaration, but obtained a verdict for a less sum. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court depends on the sum or value in dispute between the parties, as the case stands on the writ of error in the Supreme Court; not on that which was in dispute in the Circuit Court. If the writ of error be brought by the plaintiff below, then the sum the declaration shows to be due may still be recovered, should the judgment for a smaller sum be reversed; and consequently the whole sum claimed is in dispute. Smith v. Honey, 3 Peters, 469; Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Peters, 33.
In cases where the demand is not for money, and the nature of the action does not require the value of the thing to be stated in the declaration, the practice of the courts of the United States has been to allow the value to be given in evidence. Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Peters, 634.
The onus probandi of the amount in controversy, to establish the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a case brought before it by a writ of error, is upon the party seeking to obtain the revision of the case. He may prove that the value exceeds $2000 exclusive of costs. Hagan v. Foison, 10 Peters, 160.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in a case in which separate decrees have been entered in the Circuit Court for the wages of seamen, the decree in no one case amounting to $2000, although the amount of the several decrees exceed that sum, and the seamen in each case claimed under the same contract. Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Peters, 143. See Scott v. Lunt’s Adm’rs, 6 Peters, 349.
The Supreme Court will not compel the hearing of a cause unless the citation be served thirty days before the first day of the term. Welsh v. Mandeville, 5 Cranch, 321; 2 Cond. Rep. 268.
A citation must accompany the writ of error. Lloyd v. Alexander, 1 Cranch, 365; 1 Cond. Rep. 334.
When an appeal is prayed during the session of the court, a citation to the appellee is not necessary. Riley, appellant, v. Lamar et al., 2 Cranch, 344; 1 Cond. Rep. 419.
