TINTSMAN
v.
NATIONAL BANK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a dispute over payment obligations between a bank and creditor, the Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction after determining that while the plaintiff claimed $8,238.79, the defendant admitted owing $5,099.59, leaving only $3,134.20 in actual controversy—an amount below the Court's then-required $5,000 jurisdictional threshold. The Court held that jurisdiction must be based on the amount actually in dispute between the parties rather than the total amount claimed, affirming its prior holding in Gray v. Blanchard.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 ca¡se 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 $8,238.79, 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1883)…sum demanded is not the real matter in dispute, the sum shown, and not the sum demanded, will prevail. Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337; Schacker v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 93 U. S. 241; Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U. S. 564; Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 6; Banking Association v. Insurance Association, 102 U. S. 121. Under this rule it has always been assumed, since Cooke v. Woodrow, supra, that when a defendant brought a case, here, the judgment or decree against -him governed our jurisdiction, unles…
-
New England Mortg. Sec. Co. v. GAY, 145 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1892)…fee of ten per cent; the amount due according to the plaintiff’s theory was approximately $12,155, or $2429.34 more than the amount recovered. This is the proper method of ascertaining the amount in dispute in this court. Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 6; Jenness v. Citizens’ National Bank of Rome, 110 U. S. 52; Wabash, St. Louis &c. Railway v. Knox, 110 U. S. 304; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165. It is true that, under the Code of Georgia, section 2057, subdivision^, “ all titles to property ma…
-
Bowman & Another v. Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co., 115 U.S. 611 (U.S. 1885)…his court, as shown by the whole record, and not by the damages claimed or the prayer for judgment alone. Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337 ; Schacker v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 93 U. S. 211; Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U. S. 561; Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 6; Banking Association v. Insurance Association, 102 U. S. 121; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165, 171; The Jesse Williamson, Jr., 108 U. S. 305, 309 ; Jenness v. Citizens' National Bank of Rome, 110 U. S. 52; Webster v. Buffalo Insurance Co., 110 U.…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1878)