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.
General
Whitsitt v. Railroad Company
103 U.S. 77026 L. Ed. 337·Supreme Court of the United States·1880
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
Whitsitt v. Railroad Company.
The act of March 3, 1875, c. 137 (18 Stat., pt. 3, p. 470), did not change the jurisdiction of this court to review the final judgment or decree of the Circuit Court.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.
Mr. Amos Steele for the appellants.
• Mr. Bela M. Hughes, contra.-
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chibe Justice Waite]
Mr. Chibe Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
Although the act of. March 3, 1875, c. 137 (18 Stat., pt. 3, p. 470), gave the circuit courts' of the United States original cognizance of suits of a civil nature arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of $500, it did not change our jurisdiction for the review of the judgments and decrees of those courts. That depends now, as it did before, on the value of the matter in dispute, which must exceed $5,000. This record does not show in express terms or by fair implication that the value of the property in controversy reaches that sum.
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.