FRIEND & ANOTHER
v.
WISE

U.S. | 1884-05-05
111 U.S. 797 Supreme Court of the United States (1884) Caution
Also reported at: 28 L. Ed. 602 · 4 S. Ct. 695 · 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1843 · SCDB 1883-278
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. These motions are denied. The value of the two sections of land which are in dispute is conceded to be more than $5,000. The complaint alleges a joint entry and ouster, and the answer does not set up separate claims to distinct parcels of the land by the several defendants. The judgment for the recovery of the possession is against all the defendants jointly. In this respect the case is entirely different from those of Tupper v. Wise and Lynch v. Bailey, 110 U. S. 398. We have jurisdiction therefore.

The questions arising on the merits are, some of them, of a character that ought not to be disposed of on a motion to affirm.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1887)
    …claims only one parcel, the value of each parcel is the limit of appellate jurisdiction. Tupper v. Wise, 110 U. S. 398; Lynch v. Bailey, 110 U. S. 400. But if both defendants jointly claim both parcels, the value of both is the test. Friend v. Wise, 111 U. S. 797. In Henderson v. Wadsworth, 115 U. S. 264, 276, where, in an action against heirs upon a debt of their ancestor, separate judgments were rendered against them for their proportionate-shares, it was held that no one who had been thus charged with le…
  • Petition of Zeno, 14 F.2d 418 (1st Cir. 1926)
    …ourt of Porto Rico dismissing the appeal on the ground that it had not been properly perfected in the lower court was not a final decision in which a writ of error or appeal would lie to this court (Harrington v. Holler, 111 U. S. 796, 4 S. Ct. 697, 28 L. Ed. 602), and that, unless the reasons actuating the Supreme Court of Porto Rico in the dismissal of the appeal may be reconsidered here on this petition, the petitioner is without redress. We therefore proceed to consider whether the Supreme Court had jur…
  • Chamberlin v. Browning, 177 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1900)
    …by the latter upon their judgments, it is clear that the amount in dispute for the purpose of determining jurisdiction would be the amount of recovery assessed against each defendant separately. Henderson v. Wadsworth, 115 U. S. 264; Friend v. Wise, 111 U. S. 797. As stated in the Henderson case, neither co-defendant nor co-plaintiffs can unite their separate and distinct interests for the purpose of making up the amount necessary to give this court jurisdiction upon writ of error or appeal. If, therefore, t…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw