UNITED STATES
v.
BROADHEAD; UNITED STATES V. BROADHEAD
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 writs of error in two cases where the United States sued on bonds conditioned for a defendant's appearance in federal court on forgery charges, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the amount in controversy—limited to the $5,000 penalty of each bond—did not exceed the $5,000 threshold required by the 1875 Act for the Court to hear writs of error from the Circuit Courts, and the United States was not entitled to an exception to this jurisdictional requirement.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court.
These cases are' suits brought upon two bonds given by John F. Broadhead and his sureties, conditioned for his appearance in the District Court of the United States for the District of California, to answer two separate indictments for making and forging checks on the Assistant Treasurer of the United States at San Francisco. The penalty of each of these bonds was $5000, and, according to well settled principles, no interest can be recovered in such a suit as this, nor can any recovery be had beyond the amount prescribed in these instruments, except for costs.
Section '3 of the “ act to facilitate the disposition of cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, and for other purposes,” approved February 16, 1875, 18 Stat. 315, c. 77, § 3, fixing the amount necessary to give jurisdiction to this court of writs of error from the Circuit Courts at a sum in excess of five thousand dollars, applies to the United States as well as to other parties, except in the cases enumerated in § 699 of the Revised Statutes. None of these exceptions apply to the present cases.
It was attempted in United States v. Hill, 123 U. S. 681, to establish the proposit.on that that case was for the enforcement of a revenue law, and, therefore, came within the exceptions specified. It was, however, overruled by this court, and the opinion in that case forbids the idea that these cases can be treated as an exception to the general rule.
As the act of 1875, above cited, requires that there shall be an amount in controversy, exclusive of costs, exceeding five thousand dollars, and as no such recovery can be had in the cases now under consideration,
The writs are dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 236 U.S. 512 (U.S. 1915)…quently arisen, the English rule has usually but not invariably been followed. McGill v. Bank of United States, 12 Wheat. 511, 515; Farrar v. United States, 5 Pet. 373, 385; Ives v. Merchants’ Bank, 12 How. 159, 164, 165; United States v. Broadhead, 127 U. S. 212. In the state of the 'decisions, we may safely apply the rule followed by Mr. Justice Clifford in a case at the circuit, and we need go no further in order to overrule the contention raised by the Government at the trial of the present case: “Suret…
-
W. Elec. Co., Inc. v. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 37 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1930)…ed (Robertson v. Montgomery Baseball Ass’n, 140 Ala. 320, 37 So. 241; Lide v. Park, 132 Ala. 222, 31 So. 360), and to other decrees conditional upon some action to be taken by a party to the suit (Jones’ Adm’r v. Craig, 127 U. S. 213, 8 S. Ct. 1175, 32 L. Ed. 147; City of Paducah, Ky., v. East Tenn. Tel. Co., 229 U. S. 476, 33 S. Ct. 816, 57 L. Ed. 1286). So construed, it is like an order sustaining a demurrer, and is nonappealable. City and County of San Francisco v. McLaughlin, supra; Buch v. Siegel, 31 F.…
-
Brownson v. United States, 32 F.2d 844 (8th Cir. 1929)…contempt its finality may well he doubted. Its character might be called conditional, alternative, or anticipatory nisi. Such orders are generally held not appealable. 13 C. J. § 156, pp. 99, 100; Jones’ Adm’r v. Craig, 127 U. S. 213, 8 S. Ct. 1175, 32 L. Ed. 147; City of Paducah v. East Tenn., etc., Co., 229 U. S. 476, 33 S. Ct. 816, 57 L. Ed. 1286. And this is especially true if the order involves possible punishment for contempt. Semrow v. Semrow, 26 Minn. 9, 46 [*846] N. W. 446; Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Hill, 123 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1887)