TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
HORN
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.
A jury returned a verdict for $11,000 in favor of Horn against the Texas and Pacific Railway Company, but the plaintiff subsequently filed a remittitur reducing the judgment to $4,999, which the trial court allowed. The Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the case because the judgment, as finally recorded, was for less than $5,000, falling below the jurisdictional threshold for writs of error under the relevant federal statute.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
Upon the trial of this cause a verdict was returned for the plaintiff in the sum of eleven thousand dollars, and upon the suggestion of the court the plaintiff entered a remittitur of six thousand and one dollars, and prayed that the same be allowed, and judgment entered for four thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine dollars. The bill of exceptions states that judgment was’ rendered for that amount, although as recorded the terms of the judgment, after reciting the return of the verdict, were:
“ It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged by the court that the plaintiff, Henry Horn, do have and recover of the defendant, the Texas and Pacific Eailvvay Company, the sum of eleven thousand dollars and all costs in this behalf expended.
“ And it appearing to the court that on this day the plaintiff filed, in writing, a remitter of $6000.00:
“It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged by the court that execution issue for the sum of $4999.00 only, and all costs herein.”
The writ of error bore date June 24, 1890,.and was made a supersedeas, the order of allowance declaring that the judgment was rendered for $4999.00, February 13, 1890, and that, a-motion for new trial was filed, but not acted on until'June 5, 1890. The bond and'citation describe the judgment as for-, $4999.00.
Although the judgment was entered immediately upon the return of the verdict in accordance with the practice in that jurisdiction, and, therefore, for the amount of the verdict, it was within the power of the court to allow the remittitur; and while the order to that effect might, have been more accurately worded, we aré of opinion that, upon the entire record, plaintiff -in error cannot be permitted to insist that the judgment as it stands, is for a larger sum than $4999, nor can it be hereafter held liable as on judgment for any other amount. Hence this case is not within our jurisdiction, unless it falls within the act of Congress of February 25, 1889, 25 Stat. 693, c. 236, which, for the reasons given in Texas and Pacific Railway v. Saunders, ante, 105, we do not think it does. The railway company, in this case, as in that, filed a plea based upon the order of October 26, 1888,' of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and in this case, as in that, the matter set up was in bar and not in abatement. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Texas was not thereby questioned.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1899)…appeal; and, if the court had done so, and had rendered judgment for the reduced sum, the appeal must have been dismissed. Alabama Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 109 U. S. 232; Pacific Telegraph Co. v. O’Connor, 128 U. S. 394; Texas & Pacific Railway v. Horn, 151 U. S. 110. The making of- a remittitur, in this case, did not depend upon the discretion of the court, but was authorized and regulated by the statutes of the Territory. While the right of appeal to this court from the courts of the Territory is governed by…
-
Woods v. Mass. Protective Ass'n (E.D. Ky. 1929)…tioned 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 decisions relied on by defendant. Those involving a ease of fraudulen…1 / 2
-
Brady v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 68 F.2d 302 (6th Cir. 1933)…S. 640, 14 S. Ct. 1181, 24 L. Ed. 542; First National Bank of Omaha v. Redick, 110 U. S. 224, 3 S. Ct. 640, 28 L. Ed. 124; Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, 24 L. Ed. 540. In others, it was filed after judgment. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Horn, 151 U. S. 110, 14 S. Ct. 259, 38 L. Ed. 91; Pacific Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. O’Connor, 128 U. S. 394, 9 S. Ct. 112, 32 L. Ed. 488; Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 109 U. S. 232, 3 S. Ct. 120, 27 L. Ed. 915, In the latter cases the acceptance of the re…1 / 2