RYAN
v.
BINDLEY
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.
In this federal case arising from a debt dispute, the Supreme Court held that a defendant's counterclaim for set-off in Ohio state law, which exceeded the jurisdictional amount of two thousand dollars, gave the federal circuit court proper jurisdiction to hear the defendant's writ of error. The Court further reversed the judgment because the circuit court improperly excluded the defendant from testifying as a witness, since Ohio state law permitted parties to testify on their own behalf and the federal courts must apply state evidentiary rules under the Judiciary Act.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court:
1. The allegation in the declaration must be taken, generally, as fixing the amount or value for the purposes of jurisdiction. But the subsequent pleadings may so change the original character of the suit as to involve an amount or value in excess of two thousand dollars, and when this is done, the judgments and decrees of the court below are subject to be reviewed here.
In this case Ryan interposed a notice of set-off, and insisted that Bindley owed him four thousand dollars, for goods sold and money lent, which he claimed the right to set off against Bindley’s demand, and to recover against Bindley a judgment for the excess. By the laws of Ohio such a defence is permitted, and if the defendant succeeds in proving his set-off, and it is larger than the plaintiff’s claim, he is entitled to a judgment for the excess. The parties are concluded by the judgment, and cannot again litigate the same subject-matter, unless the judgment should be reversed, on appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court. This law of set-off, or counter claim, and the practice under it, has been adopted as a rule of court, by the Circuit Court of the United States for the districts of Ohio. The plea in this case was therefore proper, and after it was interposed the matter in dispute rightfully exceeded the sum of two thousand dollars, exclusive of costs, and as the plaintiff had judgment, it is plain that the defendant had the right to sue out his writ of error. 2. A reversal of the judgment is claimed, because the Circuit Court refused to permit the defendant to testify as a witness. In Ohio a party to the suit is a competent witness on his own behalf. The rules of evidence prescribed by the laws of a State are rules of decision for the United States courts, while sitting within the limits of such State, under the 34th section of the Judiciary Act.* The court having rejected the witness, when he was competent, the judgment below must be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.
Judgment accordingly.
*
Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black, 430; Wright v. Bales, 2 Id., 535.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bucher v. Cheshire R.R. Co., 125 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1888)…“ It has been often decided in this court that in actions at law in the courts of the United States the rules of evidence and the law of evidence generally of the State prevail in those courts.” See also Wilcox v. Hunt, 13 Pet. 378; Ryan v. Bindley, 1 Wall. 66. There are undoubtedly exceptions to the principle that the decisions of the state courts, as to what are the laws of that State, are in all cases binding upon the Federal courts.,. The case of Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, which has been often follow…
-
Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1883)…er v. The United States, 4 Wall. 163, and in Merrill v. Petty, 16 Wall. 338. But these were cases in which the question was as to the right of a defendant to bring up for review a judgment against' himself for less than* $2,000. In Ryan v. Bindley, 1 Wall. 66, the plaintiff below sued for $2,000, and the defendant pleaded set-off to the amount, .of $4,000. Under such a plea, if the' set-off had been sustained, the defendant would have been entitled to a judgment for the difference between the amount of h…
-
Nashua Sav. Bank v. Anglo-American Land, 189 U.S. 221 (U.S. 1903)…ates ” with respect to evidence within the meaning of this section apply hot only to the statutes but to the decisions of their highest courts. Bucher v. Cheshire Railroad, Co., 125 U. S. 555, 582; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 720; Ryan v. Bindley, 1 Wall. 66. ' The law of New Hampshire upon this subject appears to have been settled in Hall v. Costello, 48 N. H. 176, in which an attorney, resident in New Hampshire, who had gone to Canada to investigate. Canadian law, was permitted to state orally what h…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence