CITY BANK OF FORT WORTH
v.
HUNTER

U.S. | 1894-03-19
No. 264
152 U.S. 512 Supreme Court of the United States (1894) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 38 L. Ed. 534 · 14 S. Ct. 675 · SCDB 1893-189 · 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2139
Cited by 42 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

City Bank of Fort Worth appealed a lower court decree that awarded interest of approximately $4,000 to the other party, arguing the interest award violated a prior Supreme Court mandate. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that because the amount in dispute ($4,000) fell below the $5,000 jurisdictional threshold required for appeals, the Court could not review whether the lower court properly executed its mandate, even though such compliance could be enforced through mandamus regardless of the amount involved.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Harlan,

Mr. Justice Harlan,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

1. It is contended that the decree below, so far as it included interest in favor of the appellees, was not in conformity with the opinion of this court, and, for that reason, should be reversed. The claim is that such interest was “nearly or quite $4000.” In that view, has this court jurisdiction, upon appeal, to review the last decree %

In support of our jurisdiction, counsel rely upon Perkins v. Fourniquet, 14 How. 328. In that case, it was claimed that' the decree appealed from exceeded what was allowed upon a previous appeal, by a sum larger than was necessary to give this court jurisdiction. And the question arose whether the alleged error could be reached by an appeal from the last decree. Chief Justice Taney, speaking for this court, said: “ This objection to the form of proceeding involves nothing more than a question of practice. The mandate from this court left nothing to the judgment arid discretion of the Circuit Court, but directed it to carry.into execution the decree of this court, which was recited in the mandate. And if the decree of this court has been misunderstood or misconstrued by the court below, to the injury of either party, we see no valid objection to an appeal to this court in order to have the error corrected. The question is merely as to the form of proceeding which this court should adopt to enforce the execution of its own mandate in the court below. The subject might, without doubt, be brought before us upon motion, and a mandamus issued to compel its execution. But an appeal from the decision of the court below is equally convenient and suitable ; and perhaps more so in some cases, as it gives the adverse party notice that the question will be brought before this court, and affords him the opportunity of being prepared to meet it at an early day of the term.” This principle was affirmed in Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 440, 443, and recognized in In re Washington da Georgetown Railroad, 140 U. S. 92, 95.

The case cited would sustain the present appeal as an appropriate mode for raising the question above stated., if the amount now in dispute was sufficient to give this court jurisdiction to review the last decree. Under the statutes regulating the jurisdiction of this court at the date of the decision in Perkins v. Fourniquet, the amount there in dispute was sufficient for an appeal. But that case does not sustain the broad proposition that, without reference to the value of the matter in dispute, an appeal will lie from a decree, simply upon the ground that it is in violation of or a departure from the mandate of this court. While compliance with a mandate of this court, which leaves nothing to the judgment or discretion of the court below, and simply requires the execution of our decree, may be enforced by mandamus, without regard to the value of the matter in dispute, we cannot entertain an appeal, if the value of the matter in dispute upon such appeal is less than $5000. Nashua da Lowell Railroad v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 5 U. S. App. 97, 100.

2. If the sum in dispute on this appeal were sufficient to give us jurisdiction, we could consider the question of costs referred to in the second assignment of error. But as the appeal in respect to interest must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the appeal, in respect to costs, must also be dismissed. No appeal lies from a mere decree for costs. Canter v. American Ins. Co., 3 Pet. 307, 319; Wood v. Weimar, 104 U. S. 786; Paper-Bag Machine Cases, 105 U. S. 766.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

  • In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1895)
    …d, either upon a new appeal (if involving a sufficient amount) or by a writ of mandamus to execute the mandate of this court. Perkins v. [*256] Fourniquet, 14 How. 313, 330; In re Washington & George town Railroad, 140 U. S. 91; City Bank v. Hunter, 152 U. S. 512; City Bank, petitioner, 153 U. S. 216. But the Circuit Court may consider and decide any matters left open by the mandate of this court; and its decision of such matters can be reviewed by a new appeal only. Hinckley v. Morton, 103 U. S. 761; Mason…
  • Newton v. Consol. Gas Co. of N.Y., 265 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1924)
    …be taken and affirmed, it will not be reversed on a question of costs. Canter v. American Insurance Co., 3 Pet. 307, 319; Elastic Fabrics Co. v. Smith, 100 U. S. 110, 112; Paper-Bag [*83] Cases, 105 U. S. 766, 772; City Bank of Fort Worth v. Hunter, 152 U. S. 512, 516; Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U. S. 78; Du Bois v. Kirk, 158 U. S. 58, 67; Citizens’ Bank v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319, 323; Wingert v. First National Bank, 223 U. S. 670, 672. Questions of costs in admiralty and equity are discretionary and the action…
  • United States v. United States Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of N.Y., 334 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1948)
    …llowed interest on a judgment. The amount of the interest was too small to be the subject of a writ of error from this Court. It was held that mandamus [*264] was the proper remedy to enforce compliance with the mandate. And see City Bank v. Hunter, 152 U. S. 512, 515. It is, indeed, a high function of mandamus to keep a lower tribunal from interposing unauthorized obstructions to enforcement of a judgment of a higher court. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Rellstab, supra. That function may be as important in pr…

Previewing 3 of 15 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