JENNESS
v.
CITIZENS' NATIONAL BANK OF ROME

U.S. | 1884-01-07
110 U.S. 52 Supreme Court of the United States (1884) Caution
Also reported at: 28 L. Ed. 67 · 3 S. Ct. 425 · SCDB 1883-101 · 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1654
Cited by 25 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment in this case is for $1,215.16, but it appears affirmatively on the face of the record that of this amount $2,669.03 was not disputed below. The defence related alone to the difference between these two amounts, which is less than $5,000. The dispute here is only in reference, to the amount contested below. Such being the case, we have no jurisdiction. The cases of Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U. S. 564; Tintsman v. national Bank, 100 U. S. 6; and Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165, are conclusive to this effect.

Dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80 (4th Cir. 1941)
    …her than that for which he was on trial. It is a sufficient answer to this that no such objection was interposed at the time. Matheson v. United States, 227 U.S. 540, 545, 33 S.Ct. 355, 57 L.Ed. 631; United States v. Carey, 110 U.S. 51, 3 S.Ct. 424, 28 L.Ed. 67; Breedin v. United States, 4 Cir., 73 F. 2d 778, 780. As was said in the last case cited: “We exercise the power to notice plain error not assigned only where necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and a careful examination of the record con…
  • New England Mortg. Sec. Co. v. GAY, 145 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1892)
    …intiff’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 made as a part of an usurious contract, or to evade the.laws…
  • Breedin v. United States, 73 F.2d 778 (4th Cir. 1934)
    …signments of error are not based upon exceptions properly taken during the progress of the trial, and consequently cannot be considered. Matheson v. U. S., 227 U. S. 540, 543, 33 S. Ct. 355, 57 L. Ed. 631; U. S. v. Carey, 110 U. S. 51, 3 S. Ct. 424, 28 L. Ed. 67. We exercise the power to notice plain error not assigned only where necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and a careful examination of the record convinces us that there is no occasion to exercise it here. Upon only three of the assignment…

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw