Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
HUNT v. BENDER, 1868 — 154 U.S. 556 · caselaw · US
General
HUNT v. BENDER
154 U.S. 55618 L. Ed. 915·Supreme Court of the United States·1868
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
HUNT v. BENDER.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEBRASKA.
No. 103.
Submitted March 13, 1868.
Decided March 30, 1868.
Several judgments severally held by different complainants who unite in the prosecution of a creditor’s bill, cannot be added together to make the amount necessary to give this court appellate jurisdiction.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Reddick and Mr. Briggs for the appellants.
Mr. J. H. Reynolds for the appellees.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Chase]
Mr. Chief Justice Chase
delivered the opinion of the court.
The object of the writ in the territorial court was to subject certain property to the satisfaction of certain judgments. The bill of the complainants, now appellants, was dismissed, and they now prosecute this appeal for the reversal of that decree.
The judgments set up by the complainants were several, and neither of them was for an amount exceeding two thousand dollars; and it was decided at the last term in the case of Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208, that several judgments severally held by different complainants who unite in the prosecution of a creditors’ bill cannot be added together in order to make the amount exceeding two thousand dollars, which is necessary in order to enable the court to take appellate jurisdiction.
The appeal must therefore be
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.