OpenJurist

139 US 197 Callan v. Bransford Treasurer

139 U.S. 197

11 S.Ct. 519

35 L.Ed. 144

CALLAN
v.
BRANSFORD, TREASURER.

No. 1,271.

JONES

v.

COMMONWEALTH.

No. 1,594.

GREGORY et al.

v.

BRANSFORD, Treasurer.

No. 1,595.

MALLAN et al.

v.

SAME.

No. 1,596.

LAWSON et al.

v.

SAME.

No. 1,597.

LITCHFORD

v.

DAY, Sergeant.

No. 1,598.

DILLARD

v.

MOORMAN, Treasurer.

No. 1,638.

March 9, 1891.

W. W. Larkin, for plaintiffs in error.

R. Taylor Scott, Atty. Gen. Va., for defendants in error.

FULLER, C. J.

1

These cases are brought here by writ of error to the supreme court of appeals of the state of Virginia, except Dillard v. Moorman, No. 1,638, which is a writ of error to the corporation court for the city of Lynchburg. A motion is now made in each case by plaintiff in error to advance, and a motion to dismiss on behalf of defendant in eror. It appears from the motion papers that Callan v. Bransford, No. 1,271, was carried to the court of appeals on writ of error to the corporation court of the city of Lynchburg, (10 S. E. Rep. 317,) and that Gregory v. Bransford, no. 1,595, Litchford v. Day, v. Bransford, No. 1,595, Litchford v. Day, 1,597, were taken to that court by appeal. See 12 S. E. Rep. 107-109. The writ of error in the one case and the appeals in the three others were dismissed by the court of appeals upon the ground that the matters involved were purely pecuniary, and that the amount in controversy in each case was less than sufficient to give the court jurisdiction under the constitution of the state. This being so, we are of opinion that the writs of error to that court must be dismissed, and it will be so ordered. The motion papers in Jones v. Com., No. 1,594, Mallan v. Bransford, No. 1,596, and Dillard v. Moorman, No. 1,638, are not such that we can pass upon the motions to dismiss without referring to the transcripts on file, which we ought not to be obliged to do. These motions and the motions to advance will be denied, but without prejudice.