Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu/206

 to be held in such district. Provided nevertheless, That all such appeals from final decrees as aforesaid, from the district court of Maine, shall be made to the circuit court, next to be holden after each appeal in the district of Massachusetts.

.And be it further enacted, That final decrees and judgments in civil actions in a district court, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of fifty dollars, exclusive of costs, may be reexamined, and reversed or affirmed in a circuit court, holden in the same district, upon a writ of error, whereto shall be annexed and returned therewith at the day and place therein mentioned, an authenticated transcript of the record, an assignment of errors, and prayer for reversal, with a citation to the adverse party, signed by the judge of such district court, or a justice of the Supreme Court, the adverse party having at least twenty days’ notice.

And upon a like process, may final judgments and decrees in civil actions, and suits in equity in a circuit court, brought there by original process, or removed there from courts of the several States, or removed there by appeal from a district court where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of two thousand dollars, exclusive of costs, be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court, the citation being in such case signed by a judge of such circuit court, or justice of the Supreme Court, and the adverse party having at least thirty days’ notice. The following cases have been decided on the questions which have arisen as to the value in controversy, in a case removed by writ of error or appeal.

The verdict and judgment do not ascertain the matter in dispute between the parties.To determine this, recurrence must be had to the original controversy; to the matter in dispute when the action was instituted. Wilson v. Daniel, 3Dall. 401; 1Cond. Rep. 185.

Where the value of the matter in dispute did not appear in the record, in a case brought by writ of error, the court allowed affidavits to be taken to prove the same, on notice to the opposite party.The writ of error not to be a supersedeas. Course v. Stead’s Ex’ors, 4Dall. 22; 1Cond. Rep. 217; 4Dall. 20; 1Cond. Rep. 215.

The Supreme Court will permit viva voce testimony to be given of the value of the matter in dispute in a case brought up by a writ of error or by appeal. The United States v. The Brig Union et al., 4Cranch, 216; 2Cond. Rep. 91.

The plaintiff below claimed more than $2000 in his declaration, but obtained a verdict for a less sum. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court depends on the sum or value in dispute between the parties, as the case stands on the writ of error in the Supreme Court; not on that which was in dispute in the Circuit Court.If the writ of error be brought by the plaintiff below, then the sum the declaration shows to be due may still be recovered, should the judgment for a smaller sum be reversed; and consequently the whole sum claimed is in dispute. Smith v. Honey, 3Peters, 469; Gordon v. Ogden, 3Peters, 33.

In cases where the demand is not for money, and the nature of the action does not require the value of the thing to be stated in the declaration, the practice of the courts of the United States has been to allow the value to be given in evidence. Ex parte Bradstreet, 7Peters, 634.

The onus probandi of the amount in controversy, to establish the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a case brought before it by a writ of error, is upon the party seeking to obtain the revision of the case. He may prove that the value exceeds $2000 exclusive of costs. Hagan v. Foison, 10Peters, 160.

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in a case in which separate decrees have been entered in the Circuit Court for the wages of seamen, the decree in no one case amounting to $2000, although the amount of the several decrees exceed that sum, and the seamen in each case claimed under the same contract. Oliver v. Alexander, 6Peters, 143. See Scott v. Lunt’s Adm’rs, 6Peters, 349.

The Supreme Court will not compel the hearing of a cause unless the citation be served thirty days before the first day of the term. Welsh v. Mandeville, 5Cranch, 321; 2Cond. Rep. 268.

A citation must accompany the writ of error. Lloyd v. Alexander, 1Cranch, 365; 1Cond. Rep. 334.

When an appeal is prayed during the session of the court, a citation to the appellee is not necessary. Riley, appellant, v. Lamar et al., 2Cranch, 344; 1Cond. Rep. 419. But there shall be no