NAGLE
v.
RUTLEDGE
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.
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error from the Wyoming Territorial Supreme Court because the amount in controversy did not meet the jurisdictional requirement of $1,000. Although the defendant claimed a counter-claim exceeded this threshold, the Court held that since any error on the counter-claim would only reduce the plaintiff's judgment rather than result in a net recovery for the defendant, jurisdiction was lacking and the case must be dismissed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
To give us jurisdiction in cases coming from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wyoming, the value of the matter in dispute must exceed $1,000. This writ of error was sued out by the defendant below on a judgment against .him for' only $969.68. It is claimed we have jurisdiction, however, because the defendant in his answer set up a counter claim for $1,840. The only question presented here on that branch of the case is whether the plaintiff below was liable for interest. on a note of $210, at the rate of three per cent a month from the twenty-fourth day of June, 1872, until the date of the judgment, July 26, 1876, or for some-shorter period." In -no event could the amount thus put in controversy reach $1,000; and since if error should be found in. the charge of the court on this claim, it would only result in a reduction of the judgment as it now stands, and not in an actual money recovery in favor of the defendant below, it follows that our jurisdiction is not shown by the record, and that the suit must be dismissed.
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Larionoff v. The United States, 533 F.2d 1167 (D.C. Cir. 1976)…8, 84 L.Ed. 480 (1939) (retirement pay). . Plaintiff Johnson’s situation differs in one important respect from that of the Government officials in the salary cases: he is not free to leave his job. Compare Embry v. United States, 100 U.S. 680, 685, 25 L.Ed. 772, 773 (1879) (“If an officer is not satisfied with what the law gives him for his services, he may resign.”). Consequently, the crucial factor concerning contractual entitlement is not whether named plaintiff Johnson has fully served his two year ext…
-
Lowry v. McCARL, 79 F.2d 144 (D.C. Cir. 1935)…eling expenses incidental thereto, is always under the control of congress, except in the cases of the salaries of the president, and the judges of the courts of the United States. As said by this court in Embry v. United States, 100 U. S. 680, 685 [25 L. Ed. 772] : ‘All agree that congress has full control of salaries, except those of the president and judges of the courts of the United States. The amount fixed at any one time may be added to or taken from at will. No officer except the president, or a judg…