|
|
Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U.S. 594 (1916)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U.S. 594 (1916)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 240 U.S. 581, click here.
Pinel v. Pinel No. 181 Argued January 17, 1916 Decided April 3, 1916 240 U.S. 594
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Syllabus
When two or more plaintiffs having separate and distinct demands unite in a single suit, the demand of each must be of the requisite amount to be within the jurisdiction of the district court; when several plaintiffs unite to enforce a single title or right in which they have a common and undivided interest, that court has jurisdiction if they collectively equal the jurisdictional amount.
Under par. 1, § 24, Jud.Code, where jurisdiction is based on diverse citizenship, the matter in controversy must appear by distinct averment on face of the bill, or otherwise from proof, to exceed $3,000. In a suit by two children of a testator, each alleging a statutory intestacy as to himself on the ground that he was omitted from the will through testator’s mistake, and one of them claiming by purchase from another child as to whom a like mistake and statutory intestacy is alleged, one plaintiff seeking to recover two undivided share of one-eighth, and the other one undivided share of one-eighth, in an estate, the maximum value of which is less than twelve thousand dollars, held that as it does not satisfactorily appear that the value of the interest of either complainant exceed three thousand dollars, jurisdiction does not exit.
In such a suit, the interests of the complainants are separate and distinct; they cannot be aggregated in determining whether the amount in controversy is sufficient to give jurisdiction.
The facts, which involve the determination of the amount in controversy and whether it is sufficient to give the district court jurisdiction, are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U.S. 594 (1916) in 240 U.S. 594 240 U.S. 595. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CSQWB1F7FD2Y6JJ.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U.S. 594 (1916), in 240 U.S. 594, page 240 U.S. 595. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CSQWB1F7FD2Y6JJ.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U.S. 594 (1916). cited in 1916, 240 U.S. 594, pp.240 U.S. 595. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CSQWB1F7FD2Y6JJ.
|