OPELIKA CITY
v.
DANIEL
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 in a suit on municipal bond coupons because the amount in controversy fell below the Court's jurisdictional threshold. The plaintiff reduced his claim from interest coupons valued at more than $5,000 to ninety coupons worth approximately $4,155.64 through an amendment to his complaint before trial, and the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the resulting judgment because the value of the matter directly in dispute did not exceed $5,000, regardless of the collateral effect on the underlying bonds' validity.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chiep Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The action below was brought originally upon 119 interest coupons cut from 24 bonds of the city of Opelika. The bonds were in the aggregate for $24,000, and the amount claimed to be due on the coupons was more than $5,000. At first a demurrer was filed to the complaint. This being overruled, the validity of the bonds was put in issue by various pleas. Before trial, the plaintiff, Daniel, asked and obtained leave to amend his complaint so as to include only ninety of the coupons originally sued for. After the amendment a jury was empanelled, and on the trial the ninety coupons only were put in evidence. The verdict was for $4,155.64, and a judgment was entered thereon for that amount and no more. To reverse that judgment this writ of error was brought. At a former term, Daniel moved to dismiss because the.value of the matter in dispute did not exceed $5,000. That motion was continued for hearing with the case on its merits.
We decided at the last term in Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578, that our jurisdiction depends on “the matter which is directly in dispute in the particular cause in which the judgment or decree sought to be reviewed has been rendered,” and that we are not permitted, “ for the purpose of determining its sum or value, to estimate its collateral effect in a subsequent suit between the same or other parties.” That, like-this, was a suit on coupons, and the judgment was for less than $5,000, although the bonds from which they were cut amounted to much more, aud the validity of the bonds was one of the questions in dispute. The two cases cannot be distinguished-.in this particular. It was clearly within the discretion of the court to permit the amendment of the complaint before trial. In Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, we declined to .take-jurisdiction where' the verdict was for more than $5,009, but the plaintiff, before judgment, with leave of the court, remitted the excess, and' actually took' judgment for $5,000 ' and no more. In that case it was said, p. 696 :
“ Undoubtedly the trial court may refuse to permit a. verdict, to be reduced by a plaintiff on his own motion ; and if the object of the reduction is to deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction in a meritorious case, it is to be presumed the trial court will not allow it to be done. If, however, the reduction is permitted, the errors in the record will be shut out from our re-examination in. cases where our jurisdiction depends upon the amount in con uro versy.”
That case was stronger in favor of jurisdiction than this. There the reduction was made after verdict. Here before trial,. The plaintiff in effect discontinued Ms suit as to part of the coupons. He certainly could have discontinued as to all, and it is difficult to see why he might not as to a part".
The writ is dismissed for want of jurisdiction*
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1887)…ect of the judgment in another suit between the same or other parties. Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165; The Jessie Williamson, Jr., 108 U. S. 305; New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Trotter, 108 U. S. 564; Opelika v. Daniel, 109 U. S. 108; Wabash, &c., Railroad v. Knox, 110 U. S. 304; Bradstreet Co. v. Higgins, 112 U. S. 227; Bruce v. Manchester & Keene Railroad, 117 U. S. 514. The value of property sued for is not always the matter in dispute. In replevin, for instance, if the acti…
-
New England Mortg. Sec. Co. v. GAY, 145 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1892)…re compelled to find the plaintiff had title to the land, and “ that in this way the verdict and judgment may estop the parties in another suit, but that will be a collateral, not the direct, effect of the judgment.” See also Opelika Gity v. Daniel, 109 U. S. 108. In Bruce v. Manchester & Keene Railroad, 117 U. S. 511, suit was brought to collect interest due on certain railroad bonds by the foreclosure of a mortgage made to trustees to secure a series of bonds amounting to $500,000. As the suit was brought…
-
Johnson Co. v. Wharton, 152 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1894)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1882)
- Thompson v. Butler, 95 U.S. 694 (U.S. 1877)