Skip to content


Hunt Vs. Blackburn - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number127 U.S. 774
AppellantHunt
RespondentBlackburn
Excerpt:
.....hunt v. blackburn no. 199 submitted april 2, 1888 decided april 9, 1888 motion to reinstate submitted april 26, 1888 ordered continued april 30, 1888 127 u.s. 774 appeal from the district court of the united states for the eastern district of arkansas syllabus a cause under submission having been dismissed by the court of its own motion for want of jurisdictional amount, the appellant moves to reinstate and submits affidavits. the court orders the motion continued with leave to each party to file further affidavits. the case is stated in the opinion. mr. justice miller: after an examination of the record in this case, which was submitted on printed arguments, we page 127 u. s. 775 have not been able to.....
Judgment:
Hunt v. Blackburn - 127 U.S. 774 (1888)
U.S. Supreme Court Hunt v. Blackburn, 127 U.S. 774 (1888)

Hunt v. Blackburn

No. 199

Submitted April 2, 1888

Decided April 9, 1888

Motion to reinstate submitted April 26, 1888

Ordered continued April 30, 1888

127 U.S. 774

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Syllabus

A cause under submission having been dismissed by the court of its own motion for want of jurisdictional amount, the appellant moves to reinstate and submits affidavits. The Court orders the motion continued with leave to each party to file further affidavits.

The case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER: After an examination of the record in this case, which was submitted on printed arguments, we

Page 127 U. S. 775

have not been able to find any evidence of the value of the land in controversy which is the subject of this suit. It is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Mr. Haskell, on the 26th April, 1888, submitted a motion to reinstate the cause, accompanied by affidavits of the value of the property in dispute.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER: This case was dismissed by the Court on April 9, 1888, because there was no evidence of there being a sufficient amount in controversy to give this Court jurisdiction. A motion is now made to reinstate it, and affidavits submitted on the part of the appellant intended to show that the value of the land in controversy is $5,000. Although notice was given to the opposite party by telegraph, there has been no sufficient opportunity or time for him to produce counter-affidavits, nor are we entirely satisfied with the sufficiency of those produced by the appellant. This motion to reinstate the case is therefore continued until the next term of the Court, with leave for either party to file additional affidavits on this subject.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //