ZECKENDORF
v.
JOHNSON
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 Arizona District Court rendered a judgment against Zeckendorf & Co. in favor of Johnson for $4,304.93 plus interest, which was affirmed by the Territorial Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court of the United States initially had jurisdiction because the total amount due (including accrued interest calculated to the date of the territorial court's judgment) exceeded $5,000, the Court affirmed the judgment because the assigned errors addressed only the sufficiency of evidence supporting the trial court's factual findings, which are conclusive and cannot be reexamined on appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
A judgment was rendered September 28, 1885, by the District Court of Arizona, in and for the. county of Pima, against L. Zeckendorf & Co., the appellants, and in favor of Johnson, the appellee, for $4304.93, “with interest on $2800..of said sum, af the rate of two per cent per month from the date hereof until paid, and interest on $1504.33, at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the date hereof until paid.” This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory, on appeal, November 8, 1886. From that judgment of affirmance this appeal was taken, which the appellee moves to dis"miss, on the ground that the value of the matter in dispute does not exceed $5000, as now required by law. Act of March 3, 1885, c. 355, 23 Stat. 443.
The value of the matter in dispute is to be determined by the amount due at the time of the judgment brought here for review, to wit, the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territpry, and not at the time of the judgment of the District Court. Adding the interest to the judgment of the District Court until the date of that of the Supreme Court, as we must for the purpose of determining our jurisdiction, The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451; N. Y. Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National Bank, 118 U. S. 608, we find that.the amount due at the time of the judgment of the Supreme Court was considerably more than $5000. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.
But, on looking into the record, we discover that the errors assigned relate only to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings. . These we cannot consider. The findings of fact by the court below are conclusive, and cannot be reexamined here. The Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440, and cases there cited. Upon the facts as found there can be no doubt of the correctness of the judgment. It is apparent if the case is kept here longer it will be for .delay only. For that reason the motion to affirm is granted.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keller v. Ashford, 133 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1890)…ncluding.<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 more than $2500 at the' time of the decre…
-
Idaho & Or. Land Improvement Co. v. Bradbury, 132 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1889)…conclusions of the court. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Cannon v. Pratt, 99 U. S. 619; Neslin v. Wells, 104 U. S. 428; Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235, 236; Gray v. Howe, 108 U. S. 12; Eilers v. Boat-man, 111 U. S. 356; Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S. 617. The present suit was brought to enforce a mechanic’s lien created by the statutes of the Territory, which authorize the court in such a suit to order both a sale of the real estate that is subject to the lien, and judgment against the owner thereo…
-
Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co., 145 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1892)…the judgment of the District Court, with interest from its date, March 22, 1886, at ten per cent per annum, to February 17, 1888, the date of the judgment of affirmance. This court, 'therefore, has jurisdiction of the appeal. Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S. 617. On-the merits of the case two questions are presented. It appears that in 1879, Fagan, Harshaw and others were the owners of the Alta mine, and at that time made application to the proper land office for a United States patent thereto, paid the pr…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The "Abbotsford.", 98 U.S. 440 (U.S. 1878)
- New York Elevated Railroad v. Fifth Nat'l Bank, 118 U.S. 608 (U.S. 1886)
- The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451 (U.S. 1870)