Old Grant v. M'Kee Ex Rel. Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Strange v. Arkansas-Oklahoma Gas Corp. (United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas 1981)
- Ramsey v. MERCHANTS NAT. BANK OF FT. SMITH, ARK. (United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas 1981)
- Ramsey v. Merchants National Bank (United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas 1981)
- Abernathy v. Consolidated Cab Company (District Court, D. Kansas 1959)
- Elbert v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 1952)
- B. J. Van Ingen & Co. v. Burlington County Bridge Commission (District Court, D. New Jersey 1949)
- Sandara v. Jaddou (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2023)
- City of Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank (Supreme Court of the United States 1941)
- Indianapolis v. Chase Nat. Bank (Supreme Court of the United States 1941)
- Withers v. Hopkins Place Savings Bank (Ga. 1898)
- Jones v. Rowley (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California 1896)
- Hartford Fire Ins. v. Bonner Mercantile Co. (9th Cir. 1893)
- Simon v. House (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Texas 1891)
- Elgin v. Marshall (Supreme Court of the United States 1883)
- De Krafft v. Barney (Supreme Court of the United States 1863)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the' Court.-—
■ This is a writ of error to a judgment of the Court of the United States, for the Seventh Circuit, and the district.of Kentucky, awarding restitution of lot No.' 108, in the town of Fal-mouth, to the defendants in error'; who had been turned out of possession, by virtue of a writ of habere facieis possessionem, issued on a judgment in ejectment, in favour of the plaintiff in error.
Previous to the institution of the suit, the town of Falmouth had been laid out, in pursuance of an Act of Assembly, and lot No. 108 had been sold and conveyed to George Hendricks.' The law establishing the town of Falmouth,- directed that the lots should be sold,' subject to the condition of making certain improvements thereon, within seven years; on failure to do which, the trustees are empowered to enter on any lot not improved, and sell it again. These improvements were not made on lot No. 108.
The defendant in error moves to quash the writ of error, because the matter in controversy is' not of the value of 2,000>dol-lars. The motion is resisted, because the- whole’ property which was recovered in the ejectment, .may be considered as involved in this motion; since each- tenant may move separately for an award, of restitution; on the supposition' that the regularity of the proceedings, under the law by which the town *249 was established, and the lots sold, may be examined; on this motion, the plaintiff in error has brought that subject into view, and has discussed it fully. But the Court is of opinion, that the question of title cannot be considered on this writ of error. The town of Falmouth was separated from the tract. out of which it was.<-aken, and this lot was sold, before the suit was instituted; neitnerthe trustees of the town, nor the proprietors of the lot, were parties to that ejectment. • The motion to award < ■restitution, therefore, involved'nothing further. than the-lot to which the party prayed to be restored; and as that is.not of the-value of 2,000 dollars, the Court has no jurisdiction. The writ of error is to be dismissed.
Writ of error dismissed for want.of jurisdiction; it net appearing that the value of the premises, in this suit, is two thoúsand dollars.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.