BENJAMIN J. KNAPP, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
EDMUND BANKS
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 held that jurisdiction for a writ of error is determined by the amount in controversy at the time judgment is rendered, not by subsequent additions such as accrued interest. The Court dismissed the writ of error because although the plaintiff claimed over $2,000, the actual judgment rendered was only $1,720, which fell below the jurisdictional threshold, and future interest could not retroactively establish jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the court.
We entertain no doubt whatsoever upon this question. The amount in controversy is to be decided by the sum in controversy at the time of the judgment, and not by any subsequent additions thereto, stich as interest. The distinction constantly maintained is this: Where the plaintiff sues for an amount exceeding $2000, and the ad damnum exceeds $2000, if by-reason of any erroneous ruling of the court below, the.plaintiff recovers nothing, or less than $2000, there, the sum claimed by the plaintiff is the sum in controversy for which a writ of error will lie. But if a verdict is given against the defendant for a less sum than' $2000,-'and judgment passes a grbst him accordingly, there it is obvious that there is, on the part of the defendant, nothing in controversy beyond the sum for which the judgment is given; and consequently he is not entitled to any writ of error. We cannot look beyond the time-of the judgment in order to ascertain whether a writ of error lies or not.
ORDER. Mr. Ogden, of counsel for Ihe defendant’in error, moved the court to dismiss this writ of error for the want of jurisdiction, because the matters or sum in controversy, exclusive-of costs, did not exceed $2000; which was opposed by Mr: Benedict, of counsel for the plaintiff in error, who contended that although the judgment of the Circuit Court -was only for $1720, yet that the interest on that sum added thereto would make it exceed $2000. To which Mr. Ogden rejoined, that the right of. the party to a writ of error, was controlled by the amount at the rendition of the judgment and could not be enlarged by time. On consideration whereof, It . is the opinion of this court that where the plaintiff in the court below claims $2000 or more, and the ruling of the court is for a less sum, that he is entitled to a writ of error: but that the defendant in the court below is not entitled to such writ where the judgment against him is for a less sum than $2000 at the. time of the rendition thereof — that this is the settled practice of this court. "Whereupon it is now here ordered and .adjudged by this court that this writ of error be and the same is hereby dismissed for the want of jurisdiction
February 3d.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1883)…s no jurisdiction. This casp was followed at the same term in Smith v. Honey, 3 Pet. 469. Nothing further of importance connected with the particular question we are now considering appears in the reported cases until 1844, when, in Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73, which was a writ of error brought by a defendant against whom a judgment had been rendered for less than $2,000, Mr. Justice Story said for the court: “ The distinction constantly maintained is this : Where the plaintiff sues for an amount exceedi…
-
Thompson v. Butler, 95 U.S. 694 (U.S. 1877)…to dismiss, because the “ matter in dispute ” does “ not exceed the 'Sum or value of $5,000.” As the writ of error was sued out by the defendant below, the amount in controversy was fixed by the judgment. Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 33; Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73; Walker v. United States, 4 Wall. 163; Merrill v. Petty, 16 id. 338. No question is presented growing out of a set-off or counter-claim, as was the case in Ryan v. Bindley, 1 id. 66. Our jurisdiction cannot be invoked until the final judgment below…
-
O'Reilly v. Edrington, 96 U.S. 724 (U.S. 1877)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence