NEW YORK ELEVATED RAILROAD
v.
FIFTH NATIONAL BANK

U.S. | 1886-11-01
Mr. Justice Field took no part in this decision.
118 U.S. 608 Supreme Court of the United States (1886) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 30 L. Ed. 259 · 7 S. Ct. 23 · SCDB 1886-005 · 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1952
Cited by 13 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court held that when a defendant files a writ of error, the Court's jurisdiction is determined by the amount of the final judgment rendered, and that interest accrued before judgment counts toward meeting the jurisdictional amount requirement. The Court rejected a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, establishing that once jurisdiction attaches based on the judgment amount, it cannot be defeated by subsequent waiver or release of the excess amount.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

- delivered the opinion of the court.

The rule is settled that, when a writ of error is sued out from this court by the defendant below, and no question is presented growing out of a partial defence to the action, or a counter-claim or a set-off, the value of the matter in dispute is fixed by the amount of the judgment. Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 33; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165; Henderson v. Wadsworth, 115 U. S. 264, 276. Our jurisdiction cannot be invoked •until after a final judgment, and, until such a judgment has been rendered, the cause remains in the full judicial control of the court in which it is pending. It was because of this that we declined to take jurisdiction in Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, where the verdict was for more than $5000, but was reduced to that amount, by leave of the court, before the judgment, which was for the reduced sum. It is true that our jurisdiction depends on the amount of the judgment, exclusive of interest thereon, Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rogers, 93 U. S. 565, 566; but here the interest accrued before judgment, and not after. In The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451, jurisdiction was taken in a case where the decree was for $1982, “ and interest from the date of the report,” which made more than $2000 due at the time of the decree, that being then the jurisdictional limit.

As the jurisdiction has once attached it cannot be defeated by a waiver, or release of the amount in excess of $5000.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Mr. Justice Field took no part in this decision.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Keller v. Ashford, 133 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1890)
    …he judgment or decree appealed from, including.<any ipteres^ then accrued, is the test of appellate jurisdiction!] Bank of United States v. Daniel, 12 Pet. 32, 52; The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451; New York Elevated [*618] Railroad v. Fifth National Bank, 118 U. S. 608; Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S. 617. By the express terms of the promissory note sued on. in this case, it bore interest at the rate of eight per cent yearly from its date until paid. Computing interest accordingly, the sum in dispute was much mor…
  • Mass. Benefit Ass'n v. Miles, 137 U.S. 689 (U.S. 1891)
    …the added interest, exceeds $5000, jurisdiction will attach. The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451; The Rio Grande, 19 Wall. 178; Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S. 617; District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 227; New York Elevated Railroad v. Fifth Nat. Bk., 118 U. S. 608; Keller v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610. The.motion to dismiss will therefore be Denied.…
  • United States v. Beattie, 613 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1980)
    …ge was also coercive. United States v. Scruggs, 583 F. 2d 238, 241 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Smith, 521 F. 2d 374, 376-77 (10th Cir. 1975); United States v. Martinez, 446 F. 2d 118, 119—20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 994, 92 S.Ct. 297, 30 L.Ed. 259 (1971). Indeed, in Contreras we stated both that the Allen charge given there was premature, and that we had “a profound feeling that it was coercive upon the jury.” United States v. Contreras, supra, 463 F. 2d at 774. This suggests that we did exam…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw