Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

RITCHIE v. MAURO FORREST

U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 1, 1829
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

The value of the interest a guardian has in the minor's estate, is not the value of the estate, but that of the office of guardian. This is of no value, except so far as it affords a compensation for labours and services; and in a controversy between persons claiming adversely as guardians, having no distinct interest of their own, it cannot be considered as amounting to a sufficient sum to authorise an appeal to this Court, from a circuit court of the district of Columbia.

THIS was an appeal from the circuit court of the county of Washington; in which court the proceedings of the orphans' court of that county, appointing a guardian to the estate of a minor, had been reversed on appeal, and the court had proceeded to pass such a decree as it adjudged the orphans' court should have passed. From this decree of the circuit court, the appellant came before this Court, and he sought to sustain the decision of the orphans' court.

The appellant, under an order of the orphans' court, had been appointed the guardian of John W. Ott; and had, in pursuance of the same order, entered into a bond, as guardian of the said John W. Ott, in the penal sum of $10,000, with sureties.

Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the present case, a majority of the Court are of opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction in the case; the value in controversy not being sufficient to entitle the party by law to claim an appeal. The value is not the value of the minor's estate, but the value of the office of guardian. The present is a controversy merely between persons claiming adversely as guardians, having no distinct interest of their own. The office of guardian is of no value; except so far as it affords a compensation for labour and services thereafter to be earned.