COGSWELL
v.
FORDYCE
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 case involving a bond dispute because the matter in controversy did not exceed $5,000, which fell below the Court's jurisdictional threshold, and the case did not involve a deprivation of constitutional rights or federal citizenship rights that would have permitted the Court to exercise jurisdiction regardless of the amount in dispute.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court.
After stating the facts as above reported, he continued: This court cannot’ take cognizanceAf this case. The matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, does not exceed the sum or value of $5000. ' Rev. Stat., §§ 690, 691; Act of February 16, 1875, c. 77, §§ 3, 4, 18 Stat. 315; Richardson’s Suppl. Rev. Stat. 136.
It was, perhaps, supposed that our jurisdiction could be-sustained under "the fourth subdivision of § 699 of the Revised Statutes, providing that this court may, without regard to the sum or value in dispute, review any final'judgment at law or final decree in equity of any Circuit Court or of any District Court acting as a Circuit Court, “ in any case brought on account of the deprivation of any • right, privilege, or’ immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.” But’ an action upon a bond given to supersede a judgment or decree of a court of the' United States, cannot properly be said to have been brought on any such account. The mere failure or refusal of the obligors in such a bond to comply with its terms is not, within the meaning of the statute referred to, a “ deprivation ” of a right secured to the obligee by the Constitution of the. United States, or of any right or privilege belonging to him, as a citizen of the United States. See Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 115 U. S. 611, 615. ,
The writ of error is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson v. Md. Cas. Co., 62 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1932)…such voluntary reduction to prevent removal, and also such as Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, 24 L. Ed. 540, Alabama Gold Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 109 U. S. 232, 3 S. Ct. 120, 27 L. Ed. 915, and Pacific Postal Telegraph Co. v. O’Connor, 128 U. S. 394, 9 S. Ct. 112, 32 L. Ed. 488, where there were holdings that verdicts and judgments might- by authority of the trial court be reduced before appeal to prevent recourse to the Supreme Court. On the other hand were cited state court-decisions holding that credits o…
-
Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Kinneard, 129 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1889)…s judgment was not rendered in a “ case brought on account of the deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.” Cogswell v. Fordyce, 128 U. S. 391. The motion must be granted and the writ of error dismissed.…
-
Woods v. Mass. Protective Ass'n (E.D. Ky. 1929)…rom one court to another, as here. The Supreme Court has sanctioned a remittitur by a plaintiff of a part of his recovery to defeat the defendant’s right to appeal or sue out a writ of error. Pacific Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. O’Connor, 128 U. S. 394, 9 S. Ct. 112, 32 L. Ed. 488; Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Horn, 151 U. S. 110, 14 S. Ct. 259, 38 L. Ed. 91. There is, however, an instance where such transfer cannot be prevented by a device resorted to for that purpose. This brings me to the third line of decisio…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bowman & Another v. Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co., 115 U.S. 611 (U.S. 1885)