Green Vs. Fisk

Green vs Fisk

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Apr-04-1881

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/84086

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/84086
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Apr-04-1881
Case Number: 154 U.S. 668
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Green

Respondent

Fisk

Excerpt

.....thousand dollars. the appellees (complainants below) claim to be the owners each of one-eighth of the property to be divided, which it is admitted is worth only ten thousand dollars. in the petition, it is alleged that the value of the annual income was five thousand dollars, and an account of the revenue is asked, as well as a partition. this suit, like the other, was begun in a state court, and removed by green to the circuit court, where, by an express order, it was put on the equity docket, and a change in the pleadings directed so as to make it conform to rules governing equity cases. the decree appealed from simply adjudges that the appellees are the owners each of one-eighth of the property, and refers the matter "to j. w. gurley, esq., master, to proceed to a partition according to law, under the directions of the court." as was decided in the other case, this is not a final decree, but, if it was, we would be without jurisdiction, because the property only has been adjudged to the appellees, and the value of that is less than the amount required to bring a case here. there has been no order even for an accounting, and as yet we are not advised there ever will be one, much less that if it should be made, a balance would be found due from the appellant sufficient to make the value of the matter in dispute, on an appeal by him, such as our jurisdiction requires. as the appellant, to sustain his appeal, must show affirmatively that more in pecuniary value than our jurisdictional page 154 u. s. 669 requirement has been adjudged against him, he has failed to make a case for us to consider. the motion to dismiss is granted.

Full Judgment

Green v. Fisk - 154 U.S. 668 (1881)
U.S. Supreme Court Green v. Fisk, 154 U.S. 668 (1881)

Green v. Fisk

No. 965

Submitted March 21, 1881

Decided April 4, 1881

154 U.S. 668

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SYLLABUS

Green v. Fisk, 103 U. S. 515 , followed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This, like Green v. Fisk, just decided, is a motion to dismiss an appeal in a partition suit because the decree appealed from is not final, and also because the value of the matter in dispute does not exceed five thousand dollars. The appellees (complainants below) claim to be the owners each of one-eighth of the property to be divided, which it is admitted is worth only ten thousand dollars. In the petition, it is alleged that the value of the annual income was five thousand dollars, and an account of the revenue is asked, as well as a partition. This suit, like the other, was begun in a state court, and removed by Green to the circuit court, where, by an express order, it was put on the equity docket, and a change in the pleadings directed so as to make it conform to rules governing equity cases.

The decree appealed from simply adjudges that the appellees are the owners each of one-eighth of the property, and refers the matter "to J. W. Gurley, Esq., master, to proceed to a partition according to law, under the directions of the court." As was decided in the other case, this is not a final decree, but, if it was, we would be without jurisdiction, because the property only has been adjudged to the appellees, and the value of that is less than the amount required to bring a case here. There has been no order even for an accounting, and as yet we are not advised there ever will be one, much less that if it should be made, a balance would be found due from the appellant sufficient to make the value of the matter in dispute, on an appeal by him, such as our jurisdiction requires. As the appellant, to sustain his appeal, must show affirmatively that more in pecuniary value than our jurisdictional

Page 154 U. S. 669

requirement has been adjudged against him, he has failed to make a case for us to consider.

The motion to dismiss is granted.