FOURTH NATIONAL BANK
v.
STOUT & OTHERS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Fourth National Bank sought to appeal a decree in an equity suit involving multiple creditors' claims against funds held by the bank, but the Supreme Court held that because each creditor had obtained a separate and distinct decree for less than $5,000, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court established that when intervening creditors join an existing suit, each recovering their pro rata share under a separate decree, the case is treated as if each creditor had brought an independent action, and the jurisdictional amount must be met by each individual decree rather than the aggregate claims.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice "Waite delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts in the foregoing language, and continued:
The motion is granted on the authority of Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208, and Schwed v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188. The appellees have separate and distinct decrees in their favor depending on separate and distinct claims. If none of the other creditors had intervened, and the decree had been rendered in' favor of Stout, Mills & Temple alone upon their bill as filed, in which they sought to recover only their pro rata share of the assets of their debtor in the hands of the bank, it certainly could not be claimed that an appeal would lie if their recovery was for less than $5,000. The suit was instituted, not for the whole property in the hands of the bank, but only for the complainants’ pro rata share. After the suit was begun the intervening creditors were allowed to come in each for his separate share of the' assets. On their intervention the case stood precisely as it U’ould if each creditor had brought a separate suit for his separate share of the fund. The decree in favor of the several creditors has precisely the same effect, for the -purposes of an appeal, that it would have had; if rendered in such separate suits.
Since the bill was dismissed as to the other parts of case without prejudice to the rights of the defendants among themselves, the report of the master is binding on the parties only so far as it fixes the' amounts due the several appellees. In its effect the decree binds no one except the parties to the appeal in respect to the right of the several appellees tó their recovery
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart & Others v. Dunham & Others, 115 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1885)…e authority of Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall., 208; Schwed [*65] v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188; Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. v. Waterman, 106 U. S. 265; Adams v. Crittenden, 106 U. S. 576; Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543; and Fourth National Bank v. Stout, 113 U. S. 684, the motion to dismiss the appeal as to all the appellees, except Dunham, Buckley & Co., must be granted. As to the remaining appellees, the cause must be disposed of on the merits. An outline of the transactions involved in the controversy is as f…
-
Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1887)…rally less than that sum.' And in Nassall v. Wilcox, 115 U. S. 598, a similar decision was made upon an appeal by the trustee in a railroad mortgage from a decree in favor of several creditors claiming prior liens. In Fourth National Bank v. Stout, 113 U. S. 684, the court dismissed the appeal of a bank from.a decree adjudging that it held property of another corporation in trust for the creditors of the latter, (one of whom had filed the bill, and the others had intervened by leave of court pending the sui…
-
Henderson v. Wadsworth, 115 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1885)…106 U. S. 5; Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Waterman, 106 U. S. 265; Adams v. Crittenden, 106 U. S. 576; Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543 ; New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Trotter, 108 U. S. 564; Tupper v. Wise, 110 U. S. 398; Fourth National Bank v. Stout, 113 U. S. 684. The cases cited are conclusive of the question of jurisdiction. The authorities, mentioned in the note,* on which the plaintiffs in error rely, were discussed by the Chief Justice in Ex parte Baltinnore & Ohio Railroad Co., ubi supra, and were show…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208 (U.S. 1866)
- Schwed v. Smith, 106 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1882)