Case: WELLS & Others v. WILKINS
Abbreviation: Wells v. Wilkins
Decision Date: 1886-01-11
Docket Number: 
Citation: 116 U.S. 393
Volume: 116
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: WELLS & Others v. WILKINS.
Judges: 
Pages: 393–394

Head Matter:
WELLS & Others v. WILKINS.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.
Submitted January 4, 1886. —
Decided January 11, 1886.
The 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.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. J. D. Thompson for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. C. C. Yonge, Sen’r, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court. These are suits in ejectment, each for a separate and distinct. part 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.
The writs of error are consequently all dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Goldstucker & 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
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.