Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Williamson v. Kincaid
Williamson v. Kincaid, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 20 (1800)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1800-02-01
- Topic
- general
4 U.S. 20 (____) 4 Dall. 20 Williamson, Plaintiff in Error, versus Kincaid. Supreme Court of United States. *21 Ingersoll and Dallas, for the plaintiff in error. E. Tilghman, for the defendant in error. By the COURT: Be it so.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Williamson v. Kincaid. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 7 opinions
Headnotes
- Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Amount in Controversy — Proof of Value Where the value of the matter in dispute does not appear on the record and cannot be ascertained from the nature of the demand or fixed by a jury's finding, the court, absent any act of Congress or rule of court prescribing a mode of proof, may order the cause continued to allow the value of the property in dispute to be established by affidavits, taken on ten days' notice to the opposing party or her counsel. 4 U.S. at 20
- General — Appellate Practice — Writ of Error — Supersedeas An order permitting the value of the matter in dispute to be ascertained by affidavits in support of a writ of error does not operate as a supersedeas of the judgment below. 4 U.S. at 20
- General — Appellate Practice — Writ of Error — Sufficiency of Record A judgment must be reversed where the record fails to contain a sufficient description of the parties to the suit, so that the court cannot determine the controversy on the merits. 4 U.S. at 20 (citing Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382; Turner v. Bank of North-America)
WILLIAMSON v. KINCAID,4 U.S. 20(1800)
Williamson, Plaintiff in Error,versusKincaid.
FEBRUARY TERM, 1800.
1. The general errors.
2. The attainder ofG. Kincaidand the forfeiture and sale of his estate; so no right to dower accrued; and no land out of which it could be enjoyed.
3. The alienage of the widow on the 4th ofJuly1776 and ever since, by which she was incapable to take and hold real estate inGeorgia.
The principal question (whether an alien,Britishsubject, was entitled, under the treaty of peace, to claim and hold lands inPage 21dower) was not discussed, as the judgment was reversed, for want of a sufficient description of the parties to the suit, on the authority ofBinghamv.Cabot, 3Dall. 382. andTurnerv.The Bank of North-America Int. But an important point of practice was previously settled, relative to the mode of ascertaining the value of the matter in dispute, in actions like the present.For the plaintiff in error, it was admitted, in answer to an objection, that the value of the matter in dispute did not appear upon the record; but it was urged, that, from the nature of the subject, the demand of the plaintiff could not ascertain it; nor from the nature of the suit (like a case of ejectment, where damages are only given for theouster) could it be fixed by the finding of a jury, on the judgment of the Court. 3Bl. Com. 35, 6. As, therefore, there was no act of congress, nor any rule of the Court, prescribing a mode to ascertain, in such cases, the value in dispute, that the party may have the benefit of a writ of error, it was proposed to continue the cause, to afford an opportunity to satisfy the Court, by affidavits of the actual value of the property.