LAMAR
v.
MICOU
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 an appeal by a defendant from a decree ordering him to pay less than $5,000, holding that the amount in controversy for purposes of appellate jurisdiction is fixed by the decree itself, not by the defendant's argument that he should have been found liable for a greater amount. The Court rejected the defendant's attempt to appeal merely to defeat the plaintiff's claim or to challenge the underlying liability rule, ruling that a party cannot appeal solely to avoid a judgment against him when he seeks no affirmative relief.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal by the defendant below from a decree against him for less than $5,000. There is no claim of set-off or counter-claim, except to reduce the amount of the recovery. In no event can he get any money decree in his favor. All he seeks to do is to defeat the claim of the appellee. Consequently the amount in controversy, so far as this appeal is concerned, is fixed by the decree. Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694; Sampson v. Welsh, 24 How. 207. In effect he insists that, under the rule of liability established against him in. the court below, the decree should have been for more than $5,000, and that for this reason he is entitled to an appeal, so that he may.show he is not liable at all. This, we think it clear, is -not the law.
' The case is not changed by the fact that if, under an appeal which is pending in another suit, it shall be found the appellant was credited in this suit with an amount which properly belonged to-that, the decree in that suit will be reduced, while the one in this cannot be correspondingly increased. The appellee is satisfied with this decree, and has not appealed. . The appellant cannot complain if it turns out in the end that, but for a mistake which was made in his favor, the appellee might have recovered a larger amount.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1883)…nly the part of the cattle for which judgment had been rendered against the • plaintiffs, the court remarking that “the plaintiffs recovered everything else which they claimed, and the judgment against them is less than $5,000.” In Lamarr v. Micou, 104 U. S. 465, where the appeal was taken by a defendant from a decree against him for less than $5,000, it was held that if the set-off or counterclaim relied on would only have the effect of reducing the amount of the recovery [*174], without entitling the defe…
-
Lamar v. Micou, 112 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1884)…ggested at the argument, the requisite allowance has already been made in the final decree of the Circuit Court in the suit brought by the representative of the other ward, an appeal from which was dismissed by this court for want of jurisdiction in 104 U. S. 465. ,2.- Other moneys of the wards in Lamar’s hands, arising either from dividends which he had received on their behalf, or from interest with which he charged himself upon sums not invested, were used in the purchase of' bonds of the Confederate Sta…
-
Am. United Life Ins. Co. of Indianapolis v. Franklin, 97 F.2d 76 (8th Cir. 1938)….Ct. 425, 28 L.Ed. 67; Tinslman v. National Bank, 100 U.S. 6, 25 L.Ed. 530; Miller v. First Service Corporation, 8 Cir., 84 F. 2d 680, 109 A.L.R. 1179. Also see Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165, 174-176, 2 S.Ct. 424, 27 L.Ed. 688; Lamar v. Micou, 104 U.S. 465, 26 L.Ed. 774; New Orleans Banking Ass’n v. Insurance Ass’n, 102 U.S. 121, 26 L.Ed. 45; Pierce v. Wade, 100 U.S. 444, 25 L.Ed. 735; Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U.S. 564, 24 L.Ed 1108; Ryan v. Bindley, 1 Wall. 66, 17 L.Ed. 559; and Municipality of Rio Pied…
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. Butler, 95 U.S. 694 (U.S. 1877)
- Sampson v. Welsh, 24 How. 207 (U.S. 1858)