UNITED STATES EX REL. TRASK
v.
WANAMAKER

U.S. | 1893-01-03
No. 1232
147 U.S. 149 Supreme Court of the United States (1893) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 37 L. Ed. 118 · 13 S. Ct. 279 · SCDB 1892-069 · 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2151
Cited by 55 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

A former postmaster sought a writ of error based on section 706 of the Revised Statutes, which had been repealed, claiming the case involved the interests of over one thousand ex-postmasters and more than one hundred thousand dollars in disputes. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ, holding that section 706 no longer provided authority for the Court to grant such writs and that the amount actually in dispute on the record—between one and five thousand dollars—did not fall within the jurisdictional requirements of the applicable 1885 statute governing appeals from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.

The relator applied for the writ of error herein to one of the justices of this court by a petition, setting up the alleged errors relied on, and stating that théquestions of law involved. “ concern the interest of more than one thousand persons, ex-postmasters, who reside in many different States and Terri'tories, and are in like case with herself and who have presented claims for like relief before the Postmaster-General, and that all of such claims amount to more than one hundred thousand dollars;” and praying that the writ be' allowed “under section 706 of the Revised Statutes.”. The order was thereupon granted.

Upon an almost identical petition, a writ of error was allowed in United States v. Vilas, 124 U. S. 86, but no question as to the pecuniary amount involved in its relation to jurisdiction, or as to the repeal of section 706, was suggested by counsel or considered by the court. • Section 706 of the Revised Statutes and section 848 of the Revised Statutes % of the District of Columbia, which provided for the allowance of appeals and writs of error by the justices of this court under special circumstances, are no longer in foroe. Act of February 25, 1879, c. 99, 20 Stat. 320, c. 99; Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U. S. 398; Dennison v. Alexander, 103 U. S. 522; Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 443, c. 355; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82, 87.

The sum in .dispute on this record, exclusive of costs, is more than one thousand and less than five thousand dollars. It is well settled that our appellate jurisdiction, when dependent upon the sum or value really in dispute between the parties,-is to be tested without regard to the collateral effect of the judgment in another suit between the same or other parties. It is the direct effect of the judgment that can alone be considered. New England Mortgage Co. v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123; Washington and Georgetown Railroad Co. v. District of Columbia, 146 U. S. 227.

This case does not come within either of the sections of the act of March 3, 1885, regulating appeals and writs of error from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and the writ of error must, therefore, be

Dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (28 total)

  • Hewitt v. United States, 110 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1940)
    …532, 542, 543, 21 L.Ed. 707; Shama v. United States, 8 Cir., 94 F. 2d 1, 5; Hartzell v. United States, 8 Cir., 72 F. 2d 569, 585; Heard v. United States, 8 Cir.. 255 F. 829, 832. See and compare Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U.S. 150, 164, 13 S.Ct. 288, 37 L.Ed. 118; Miller v. United States, 8 Cir., 21 F. 2d 32, 36; Williams v. United States, 8 Cir., 265 F. 625; Salerno v. United States, 8 Cir., 61 F. 2d 419, 424; Hartzell v. United States, 8 Cir., 72 F. 2d 569, 580, 585; Morgan v. United States, 8 Cir., 98 F.…
  • Bracey v. United States, 142 F.2d 85 (D.C. Cir. 1944)
    …49 F. 2d 506, 512; McHenry v. United States, 51 App.D.C. 119, 124, 276 F. 761, 766; Means v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 118, 119, 65 F. 2d 206, 207. Funk v. United States, 16 App.D.C. 478, 493. Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U.S. 150, 164, 13 S.Ct. 288, 37 L.Ed. 118; Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 451, 28 S.Ct. 163, 52 L.Ed. 278. Behrle v. United States, 69 App.D.C. 304, 305, 100 F. 2d 714. 715: “la the nature of things, when the witness [accused] was examined and in answer to questions regarding m…
  • McNEILL v. S. Ry. Co., 202 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1906)

Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw