Mandamus. In the District Court of the Northern District of New
York, writs of right were prosecuted for lands lying in that
district, and neither in the writs or in the counts was there an
averment of the value of the premises being sufficient in amount to
give the court jurisdiction. The tenants appeared and moved to
dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction, which motion was
granted. Subsequently the demandant moved to reinstate the cases
and to amend, by inserting an averment that the premises were of
the value of five hundred dollars, which motion was denied by the
court. The demandant also moved the court to compel full records of
the judgments and orders of dismission and of the process in the
several suits to be made up and filed so that the demandant might
have the benefit of a writ of error to the Supreme Court in order
to have its decision upon the grounds and merits of such judgments
and orders. The district court refused this motion. On a rule in
the Supreme Court for a mandamus to the district judge and a return
to the same, it was held that the refusal to allow the amendment to
the writ and count by inserting the averment of the value of the
property was not the subject of examination in this Court. The
allowance of amendments to pleadings is in the discretion of the
judge of the inferior court, and no control over the action of the
judge in refusing or admitting them will be exercised by this
Court. The court granted a mandamus requiring the district judge to
have the records of the cases made up and to enter judgments
thereon in order to give the demandant the benefit of a writ of
error to the Supreme Court.
In cases where the demand is not for money and the nature of the
action does not require the value of the thing demanded to be
stated in the declaration, the practice of this Court and of the
courts of the United States has been to allow the value to be given
in evidence.
This Court will not exercise any control over the proceedings of
an inferior court of the United States in allowing or refusing to
allow amendments in the pleadings in cases depending in those
courts, but every party in such courts has a right to the judgment
of this Court in a suit brought in those courts, provided the
matter in dispute exceeds the value of two thousand dollars.
At the January term of this Court in 1832, on the motion of Mr.
Jones, counsel for the demandant, the Court granted
"a rule on the District Judge of the District Court of the
United States for the Northern District of New York, commanding him
to be and appear before this Court either in person or by an
Page 32 U. S. 635
attorney of this Court, on the first day of the next January
term of this Court, to-wit, on the second Monday of January Anno
Domini, 1833, to show cause, if any he have, why a mandamus should
not be awarded to the said district judge of the Northern District
of New York commanding him: "
"1. To reinstate, and proceed to try and adjudge, according to
the law and right of the case, the several writs of right and the
mises thereon joined, lately pending in said court, and said to
have been dismissed by order of said court, between Martha
Bradstreet, demandant, and Apollos Cooper, tenants."
"2. Requiring said court to admit such amendments in the form of
pleading, or such evidence as may be necessary to aver or to
ascertain the jurisdiction of said court in the several suits
aforesaid."
"3. Or, if sufficient cause should be shown by the said judge on
the return of this rule or should otherwise appear to this Court,
against a writ of mandamus requiring the matters and things
aforesaid to be done by the said judge; then to show cause why a
writ of mandamus should not issue from this Court requiring the
said judge to direct and cause full records of the judgments or
orders of dismissal in the several suits aforesaid, and of the
processes of the same, to be duly made up and filed so as to enable
this Court to reexamine and decide the grounds and merits of such
judgments or orders, upon writs of error; such records showing upon
the face of each what judgments or final orders dismissing, or
otherwise definitively disposing of said suits were rendered by the
said district court, at whose instance, upon what grounds, and what
exceptions or objections were reserved or taken by said demandant,
or on her behalf, to the judgments or decisions of the said
district court in the premises, or to the motions whereon such
judgments or decisions were found, and what motion or motions,
application, or applications were made to said court by the
demandant or on her behalf, and either granted or overruled by said
district court, both before and after said judgments or decisions
dismissing or otherwise finally disposing of said suits;
especially, what motions or applications were made by said
demandant or on her behalf to said district court, to be admitted
to amend her counts in the said suits or to produce evidence
Page 32 U. S. 636
to establish the value of the lands, &c., demanded in such
counts, together with all the papers filed and proceedings had in
said suit respectively. "
Page 32 U. S. 647
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the
Court.
After hearing counsel and considering the cause shown by the
honorable the judge for the Court of the United States for the
Northern District of New York, this Court is of opinion that it
ought not to exercise any control over the proceedings of the
district court in allowing or refusing to allow amendments in the
pleadings, but that every party has a right to the judgment of this
Court, in a suit brought by him in one of the inferior courts of
the United States, provided the matter in dispute exceeds the sum
or value of $2,000.
In cases where the demand is not for money and the nature of the
action does not require the value of the thing demanded to be
stated in the declaration, the practice of this Court and of the
courts of the United States, is to allow the value to be given in
evidence. In pursuance of this practice, the demandant in the suits
dismissed by order of the judge of the district court had a right
to give the value of the property demanded in evidence at or before
the trial of the cause, and would
Page 32 U. S. 648
have a right to give it in evidence in this Court. Consequently
he cannot be legally prevented from bringing his case before this
tribunal. The Court doth therefore direct that a mandamus be
awarded to the judge of the Court of the United States for the
Northern District of New York requiring the said judge to reinstate
and proceed to try and adjudge according to the right of the case
the several writs of right, and the mises thereon joined, lately
pending in said court between Martha Bradstreet, demandant, and
Apollos Cooper, tenants.
The following mandamus was issued by order of the Court.
"United States of America, ss. To the Honorable Alfred Conklin,
Judge of the District Court of the United States for the Northern
District of New York, greeting:"
"Whereas one Martha Bradstreet hath heretofore commenced and
prosecuted in your court several certain real actions or writs of
right in your court lately pending between the said Martha
Bradstreet, demandant, and the following named tenants severally
and respectively, to-wit, Apollos Cooper and others [naming them].
And whereas, heretofore, to-wit, at a session of the Supreme Court
of the United States held at Washington on the second Monday of
January in the year 1832, it appeared, upon the complaint of the
said Martha Bradstreet, among other things, that at a session of
your said court, lately before holden by you, according to law, all
and singular the said writs of right then and there pending before
your said court, upon the several motions of the tenants aforesaid,
were dismissed, for the reason that there was no averment of the
pecuniary value of the lands demanded by the said demandant in the
several counts filed and exhibited by the said demandant against
the several tenants aforesaid, which orders of your said court so
dismissing the said actions were against the will and consent of
demandant, whereupon, the said Supreme Court, at the instance of
said demandant, granted a rule requiring you to show cause, if any
you had, among other things, why a writ of mandamus from the said
Supreme Court should not be awarded and issued to you commanding
you to reinstate and proceed to try and adjudge according to the
law and right of the case, the several writs of right aforesaid,
and the mises therein joined. And whereas, at the late
Page 32 U. S. 649
session of the said Supreme Court, held at Washington on the
second Monday of January in the year 1833, you certified and
returned to the said Supreme Court, together with the said rule,
that after the mises had been joined in the several causes
mentioned in the said rule, motions were made therein, on the part
of the tenants, that the same should be dismissed, upon the ground
that the counts respectively contained no allegation of the value
of the matter in dispute, and that it did not therefore appear by
the pleadings that the causes were within the jurisdiction of the
court; that, in conformity with what appeared to have been the
uniform language of the national courts upon the question, and your
own views of the law, and in accordance especially with several
decisions in the circuit court for the third circuit (
see
4 W.C.C. 482, 624), you granted their motions, and assuming that
the causes were rightly dismissed, it follows of course that you
ought not to be required to reinstate them unless leave ought also
to be granted to the demandant to amend her counts."
"And whereas afterwards, to-wit, at the same session of the said
Supreme Court last aforesaid, upon consideration of your said
return and of the cause shown by you therein against the said
rule's being made absolute, and against the awarding and issuing of
the said writ of mandamus, and upon consideration of the arguments
of counsel, as well on your behalf, showing cause as aforesaid, as
on behalf of the said demandant, in support of the said rule, it
was considered by the said Supreme Court that you had certified and
returned to the said court an insufficient cause for having
dismissed the said actions, and against the awarding and issuing of
the said writ of mandamus, pursuant to the rule aforesaid, the said
Supreme Court being of opinion and having determined and adjudged
upon the matter aforesaid, that in cases where the demand is not
made for money, and the nature of the action does not require the
value of the thing demanded to be stated in the declaration, the
practice of the said Supreme Court and of the courts of the United
States is to allow the value to be given in evidence; that, in
pursuance of this practice, the demandant in the suits dismissed by
order of the judge of the district court had a right to give the
value of the property demanded in evidence either at or before the
trial of the cause, and would have a right to give it in
evidence
Page 32 U. S. 650
in the said Supreme Court; consequently, that she cannot be
legally prevented from bringing her cases before the said Supreme
Court, and it was also then and there considered by the said
Supreme Court that the peremptory writ of the United States issue,
requiring and commanding you, the said judge of the said district
court, to reinstate and proceed to try and adjudge, according to
the law and right of the case, the several writs of right and the
mises therein joined, lately pending in your said court between the
said Martha Bradstreet, demandant, and Apollos Cooper and others,
the tenants aforesaid."
"Therefore you are hereby commanded and enjoined that
immediately after the receipt of this writ, and without delay, you
reinstate and proceed to try and adjudge according to the law and
right of the case, the several writs of right and the mises therein
joined, lately pending in your said court between the said Martha
Bradstreet, demandant, and the said Apollos Cooper and others, the
tenants hereinabove named, so that complaint be not again made to
the said Supreme Court, and that you certify perfect obedience and
due execution of this writ to the said Supreme Court, to be held on
the first Monday in August next. Hereof fail not, at your peril,
and have then there this writ."
"Witness the honorable John Marshall, Chief Justice of said
Supreme Court, the second Monday of January, in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three."
"W. T. CARROLL"
"Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States"
