CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


TINTSMAN V. NATIONAL BANK, 100 U. S. 6 (1879)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 100 U. S. 6 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U.S. 6 (1879)

Tintsman v. National Bank

100 U.S. 6

MOTION TO DISMISS A WRIT OF ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Syllabus

Where, by an agreed statement of facts in the nature of a special verdict, the plaintiff's claim was admitted by the defendant, except the sum of $3,134.20, held that that sum was the amount actually in dispute, and although judgment was rendered below for the entire claim, being more than $5,000, the writ of error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U. S. 564, we held that a case must be dismissed, if, on an examination of the whole record, it appeared that the value of the matter actually in dispute between the parties was less than our jurisdictional amount. This writ of error was brought by the defendant below to reverse a judgment against him of more than $5,000, but on looking into the record, we find that the case was heard on an agreed statement of facts in the nature of a special verdict, in which it appeared that the plaintiff claimed of the defendant $8,233.79, and interest from June 4, 1876. The defendant admitted that he owed of this amount $5,099.59, for which the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment. The only controversy was as to the liability of the defendant for the difference between what he admitted to be due and what the plaintiff claimed, or $3,134.20. This, then, is the amount actually in dispute, and as it is less than $5,000, we have no jurisdiction.

Writ dismissed.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED