Imágenes de páginas

the recovery, if any, must be against the defendants severally, and as the amount claimed from each does not exceed $2,500, this court has no jurisdiction. Paving Co. v. Mulford, 10 Otto, 147.

43. (Oct., 1879.) Where a number of bidders filed such a bill [to enjoin the Washington Market Company from selling the stalls leased to them], the value of the right to sell, which the company claimed and the court below denied, determines the jurisdiction here. Where, therefore, a sale which would have produced more than $2,500, was enjoined by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, the company is entitled to an appeal, under the act of Feb. 25, 1879 (20 Stat. 320). Market Company v. 11offman, 11 Otto, 112.

Case where Matter in Dispute exceeds $100.

Sec. 706. The writ of error or appeal provided for by the preceding section may be allowed in any case where the value of the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, is less than one thousand dollars, but more than one hundred dollars, upon the petition in writing of either party, accompanied by a copy of the proceedings complained of, and an assignment of errors, exhibited to any justice of the Supreme Court, if said justice is of opinion that such errors involve questions of law of such extensive operation as to render a decision of them by the Supreme Court desirable. The allowance in such case shall be by the written order of said justice, directed to the clerk of the Supreme Court of said district, to allow the appeal or issue the writ of error.

2 April, 1816, c. 39, s. 2, v. 3, p. 261. 3 March, 1863, c. 91, ss. 2, 11, v. 12,

pp. 763, 764.


$100. – DECISION 1.

1. (Dec., 1864.) A question involving the construction of a statute regulating intestacies within the District of Columbia is not a question of law of “such extensive inter

est and operation,” as that, if the matter involved is not of the value of $1,000 or upwards, this court will assume jurisdiction under the act of Congress of April 2, 1816. Campbell v. Reed, 2 Wall. 198.

Appeals from the Court of Claims.

Sec. 707. An appeal to the Supreme Court shall be allowed, on behalf of the United States, from all judgments of the Court of Claims adverse to the United States, and on behalf of the plaintiff in any case where the amount in controversy exceeds three thousand dollars, or where his claim is forfeited to the United States by the judgment of said court, as provided in section one thousand and eighty-nine.

3 March, 1863, c. 92, ss. 5, 11, v. 12, pp. 766, 767. 25 June, 1868, c. 71, s. 1, v. 15, p. 75.



1. (Dec., 1867.) When the party desiring to appeal (from the Court of Claims] signifies his intention to do so, in any appropriate mode, within the ninety days allowed by that statute [of March 3, 1863 ? ] for taking an appeal, the limitation of time ceases to affect the case; and such is also the effect of the third rule of the Supreme Court concerning such appeals. United States v. Adams, 6 Wall. 101.

2. The act of March 3, 1863, concerning the Court of Claims, confers a right of appeal in cases involving over $3,000, which the party desiring to appeal can exercise by his own volition, and which is not dependent on the discretion of that court. 1.

3. (Dec., 1867.) A case in the Court of Claims, which involves the right of a claimant to a military bounty landwarrant, under the acts of Congress of March 3, 1855, and

1 No appeal could be taken from the Court of Claims previous to this act. Gordon v. United States, 2 Wall. 561.

May 14, 1856, which claim had been rejected by the Commissioner of Pensions, and the rejection confirmed by the Secretary of the Interior, is apparently within that part of the fifth section of the act of March 3, 1863, which provides " that when the judgment or decree will affect a class of cases, or furnish a precedent for the future action of any executive department of the government in the adjustment of such class of cases, . . . and such facts shall be certified to by the presiding justice of the Court of Claims, the Supreme Court shall entertain an appeal, on behalf of the United States, without regard to the amount in controversy.United States v. Alire, 6 Wall. 573.

4. Accordingly, an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims, in such a case, where there had been no special allowance, and which had been dismissed by this court, because not a judgment for money and over $3,000, was, on motion of the United States, reinstated, and the record remanded to the Court of Claims for such further proceedings as might seem fit and proper in the cause, as it respected the appeal prayed for. Ib.

5. (Dec., 1869.) An appellant has a right to have his appeal dismissed notwithstanding the opposition of the other side. Latham's and Deming's Appeals, 9 Wall. 145.

6. (Dec., 1869.) Where an act of Congress gives, as part of the general system of organization of a court, an appeal from any final judgment or decree which may hereafter be rendered by it, an appeal lies from a judgment rendered under an act which gives the court jurisdiction to pass, in the usual way, and not by any special proceedings, upon a class of cases additional to those of which it already has jurisdiction, even though nothing be said in such act about an appeal. Er parte Zellner, 9 Wall. 214.

7. (Dec., 1872.) The allowance of an appeal to this court by the Court of Claims does not absolutely and of itself remove the cause from the jurisdiction of the latter court, so

that no order revoking such allowance can be made. Er parte Roberts, 15 Wall. 384.

8. (Dec., 1872.) When the Court of Claims, on a claim embracing several items, rejects some, but allows others, against which allowance the United States alone appeals, this court will not give consideration to the items rejected, and against whose rejection the claimant has not appealed, except so far as may be necessary for a proper understanding of the item allowed. United States v. Hickey, 17 Wall. 9.

9. (Oct., 1873.) An act of Congress passed on the 14th of February, 1865, “ for the relief of Alexander J. Atocha," directed the Court of Claims to examine into his claim against the government of Mexico, for losses sustained by him by reason of his expulsion from that country in 1845, and provided that if the court was of opinion that the claim was a just one against Mexico when the treaty of 1818 was ratified, and was embraced by that treaty, it should " fix and determine” its amount, and declared that the loss or damage sustained by him, thus adjudicated and determined, should be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, subject only to the condition that the amount did not exceed the unapplied balance of the sum provided by the treaty. Under this act the claim of Atocha was resented to that court for examination and determination. The court gave its decision to the effect that it was of opinion that the claim was a just one against Mexico when the treaty of 1818 was ratified, and was embraced by that treaty, and ** fixed and determined ” the amount of the loss and damage sustained by Atocha, and declared that it would be satisfied by the United States paying to the administratrix of the estate of the claimant the balance remaining unapplied of the sum designated in the treaty. Held, that the decision of the Court of Claims was final under the special act, and that no appeal would lie from it to this court. Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 440.

[ocr errors]

10. (Oct., 1874.) When a claim on the government, not capable of being otherwise prosecuted, is referred by special act of Congress to the Court of Claims, acting judicially in its determination, a right of appeal to this court, in the absence of provision to the contrary, is given by the act of June 25, 1863 (sec. 707 Revised Statutes). That act gives to the United States the right of appeal from the adverse judgment of the said court, in all cases where it is required by any general or special law to take jurisdiction of a claim made against the United States, and act judicially in its determination. Vigo's Case: Ex parte United States, 21 Wall. 618.

11. A right of appeal, though not given in terms in such special act, may be inferred from its general character and its particular indications. 16.

12. Some of these pointed out in the present case. Ib.

13. (Oct., 1876.) The Court of Claims, by granting a new trial after rendering judgment, and while an appeal therefrom is pending here, vacates the judgment, and resumes control of the case and the parties. United States v. Young, 4 Otto, 258.

14. In such a case a writ of certiorari will not be granted to compel that court to send here the proceedings subsequent to the appeal; but the appeal will be dismissed. Ib.

15. After judgment shall have been finally rendered by the Court of Claims, the proceedings in which the new trial was obtained may be brought here, by appeal, for review. Ib.

16. (Oct., 1877.) The decision of the Court of Claims awarding, on the motion of the United States, a new trial, while a claim is pending before it, or on appeal from it, or within two years next after the final disposition of such claim, cannot be reviewed here. Young v. United States, 5 Otto, 641.

« AnteriorContinuar »