Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Hagan v. Foison 35 U.S. 160

← Cases

Hagan v. Foison

35 U.S. 160 10 Pet. 160 Court SCOTUS English

Delivered by Story J.

Contents

Majority — Story J.

p. 160
John Hagan, plaintiff in error v. Thomas J. Foison.

Syllabus

The onis probandi of the amount in controversy, to establish the jurisdiction in a Case brought' before the court by writ of error, is upon the party seeking to obtain a revision of tile case. He may prove that the' value exceeds two thousand dollars, exclusive of costs. In this case, the matter in question is the ownership of one negro woman and two children, who are slaves, and it is not supposed their value can be equal to that sum. The writ of error was dismissed.
IN error to the district court of the United States, for the southern-district of Alabama.
This case was argued by Coxe for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Key for the defendant.
After the argument, the court,
on inspecting the record, became satisfied that the amount m controversy between the parties, was not sufficient to give the plaintiff a right to bring the casé up by writ of error.

delivered the opinion of the court;

The court are not sátisfied that this case is within their appellate jurisdiction. To support that jurisdiction, it is necessary that it should appear upon the face of the record, or upon affidavits to be filed by the parties, that the sum or value in controversy exceeds $2,000-, exclusive of costs. The'onis probandi is upon the party seeking to obtain a revisión of the case, to establish. the- jurisdiction. Here the whole matter in controversy is the ownership of one negro woman and two children, who are slaves; and it is not supposed that their value can be equal to $2,000. The bond in the case, in the nature of a forthcoming bond, in a larger penalty, does not vary the result. But the plaintiff in error is at liberty to establish, if necessary^ that the value exceeds that sum. But there áre other cases on the docket, between the plaintiff in error and other persons, which involved the same points, which have been argued in this case. If any of these cases involved a sum or value which entitles the court to take jurisdiction,- we will hereafter give an opinion upon those points.