116 U.S. 393 - Wells v. Wilkins — 116 U.S. 393

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1959

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

¶2The court receives affidavits from plaintiffs in error, and counter affidavits from defendants in error, to determine the value of tracts of land sued for in ejectment (neither pleadings nor evidence in the record showing it), and dismisses the case.

¶3The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

¶4Mr. J. D. Thompson for plaintiffs in error.

¶5Mr. C. C. Yonge, Sen’r, for defendant in error.

¶6Mr. Chief Justice Waite

¶7delivered the opinion of the court. These are suits in ejectment, each for a separate and distinct. *394part of a lot in Pensacola. A judgment was rendered in each case1 for the recovery of the premises sued for in that case. Neither the pleadings nor the evidence found in the records show the value of the property, but on suing out the writs of error the plaintiffs in error in each case filed two affidavits to ' the effect that the value was more than $5000. ’ Since the cases were docketed here, however, the defendant in error has filed counter affidavits which prove beyond all doubt that this is a mistake, and that the value in every one of the cases is very much less than our jurisdictional limit.

¶8The writs of error are consequently all dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

¶9Goldstucker & Another v. Wilkins. Wells & Others v. Wilkins. Wells & Others v. Wilkins. Wells & Others v. Wilkins. Wells & Another v. Wilkins. All in error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida. These cases were all submitted at the same time, and by the same counsel, with Wells v. Wilkins reported above, and are, for the reasons given in the above opinion, all

¶10Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.