KOENIGSBERGER V. RICHMOND SILVER MINING CO., 158 U. S. 41 (1895)Subscribe to Cases that cite 158 U. S. 41
U.S. Supreme Court
Koenigsberger v. Richmond Silver Mining Co., 158 U.S. 41 (1895)
Koenigsberger v. Richmond Silver Mining Company
Nos. 260, 220
Argued April 4-5, 1895
Decided April 22, 1895
158 U.S. 41
Under the Act of February 22, 1889, c. 180, for the division of the Territory of Dakota into two states and for the admission of those and other states into the union, and providing that the circuit and district courts of the United States shall be the successors of the Supreme and District Courts of each territory as to all cases pending at the admission of the state into the union,
"whereof the circuit or district courts by this act established might have had jurisdiction under the laws of the United States had such courts existed at the time of the commencement of such cases,"
the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota has jurisdiction, at the written request of either party, of an action brought in a district court of that part of the Territory of Dakota which afterwards became the State of South Dakota, by a citizen of that part of the territory, since a citizen of the state, against a citizen of another state, and pending on appeal in the supreme court of the territory at the time of the admission of the state into the union.
In an action against a corporation for the breach of a contract to transfer a certain number of its shares to the plaintiff, he testified to their value; and the defendant's president, being a witness in its behalf, testified that they were worth half as much; the jury returned a verdict for the larger sum; exceptions taken by the defendant to the competency of the plaintiff's testimony on the question of damages were sustained, and the court ordered that a new trial be had unless the plaintiff would file a remittitur of half the damages, and, upon his filing a remittitur accordingly, and upon his motion, rendered judgment for him for the remaining half. Held, no error of which either party could complain.
The case is stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary