CLAY CENTER
v.
FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY
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.
Clay Center, a city, was sued by Farmers' Loan & Trust Company to recover two unpaid installments of hydrant rental totaling $1,850 plus interest under an alleged contract for water-works construction. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of the Trust Company and awarded $4,042.65, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the amount recovered fell below the Court's jurisdictional threshold, and future potential hydrant rental claims could not be used to establish the required jurisdictional amount.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit to recover of the city of Clay Center two instalments of hydrant rental for eighteen hundred and fifty dollars each, with interest. These rentals were claimed to be due under an alleged contract in-respect of the erection of water-works, between the city and one Bonebrake and a "Water-works company, his assignee and successor, and to .be payable under said contract to the -Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, trustee in a trust deed tó secure bonds issued by the Water-works company for the purpose of borrowing money to complete the construction of the, works.
The bill prayed that the city be decreed to have contracted with the Trust Company to pay directly to it so much of the hydrant rental as might be necessary to pay the interest on the bonds, and to pay the two instalments then due with interest. The decree sustained the contract and the liability to pay the Trust Company directly and awarded recovery to the amount of $4042.65. ' This was all that could be recovered in this suit, if the contract were valid and binding as found. If the Circuit. Court had arrived at the contrary conclusion on that point, this was' all that in this suit complainant could have lost; and as in the latter contingency complainant could not have brought the case here, so. def éndant cannot, because the decree, which allowed all that was claimed, is for less than the jurisdictional amount. The value of the matter in dispute was the accrued rental and interest, and although the determination that such rental was due and should be paid to the trustee involved the existence and validity of the contract, yet causes of action for hydrant rentak which had not accrued but might subsequently accrue cannot be availed of to make out jurisdiction of the case by this court upon appeal. New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Gay, ante 123.
The appeal is'’
Dismissed for. want ofjurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holt v. Ind. Mfg. Co., 176 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1900)…on future' taxation- of a decision that the particular taxation is in valid, cannot be availed of to add to the sum or value of the matter in dispute. New England Mortgage Company v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123; Clay Center v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 145 U. S. 224; Citizens' Bank v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319. The language of 'the first section of the act'of .March 3, 1887, as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, is: “That the Circuit Courts of the United States shall have original -cognizance, concurrent wit…
-
Berryman v. Bd. of Trs. of Whitman Coll., 222 U.S. 334 (U.S. 1912)…decree of the Circuit Court- is reversed and the cause . is remanded to the District Court with directions for further proceedings in conformity to this opinion. Holt v. Indiana Manufacturing Co., 176 U. S. 68; Clay Center v. Farmers’ L. & T. Co., 145 U. S. 224; New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123; Citizens’ Bank v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319; Rude v. Westcott, 130 U. S. 152; Walter v. Northeastern Railroad Co., 147 U.S. 370.…
-
Wash. & Georgetown R.R. Co. v. Dist. of Columbia, 146 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1892)…appear that the judgment would be conclusive in a subsequent action,- it is the direct effect of the judgment that can alone be considered. New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123, 130; Clay Center v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, 145 U. S. 224 ; Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, and cases cited. The inquiry at- once arises in this case, therefore, whether it appears from the record that the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars. And, without conf…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence