COOKE
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1864-12-01
2 Wall. 218 Supreme Court of the United States (1864) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 17 L. Ed. 755 · SCDB 1864-001 · 1864 U.S. LEXIS 424
Cited by 14 cases
Opinion of the Court
The CHIEF JUSTICE:

The CHIEF JUSTICE:

It does not appear that the proposition has'been accepted; and if not, the amount in controversy remains unaffected. But had the alleged reduction 'been made by an actual payment, the jurisdiction of the court would not be taken away. The jurisdictional facts existed at the time of issuing and serving the writ of error. By its issue and service the court obtained jurisdiction over the 'cause, and this jurisdiction once acquired, cannot be taken away by any change in the value of the subject of controversy.

Motion overruled and case retained.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Saint Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1938)
    …Turmine v. West Jersey & S. R. Co., 44 F. (2d) 614; American Stores Co. v. Gerlach, 55 F. (2d) 658. The same principle applies in cases where a fixed amount is requisite to jurisdiction on appeal. Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337; Cooke v. United States, 2 Wall. 218. Woods v. Massachusetts Protective Assn., 34 F. (2d) 501. And an amendment in the state court reducing the claim below the jurisdictional amount before removal is perfected is effective to invalidate removal and requires a remand of the cause: Main…
  • Kirby v. Am. Soda Fountain Co., 194 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1904)
    …s has once attached [*146] it will not be ousted by subsequent change in the conditions. Morgan v. Morgan, 2 Wheat. 290; Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164; Kanouse v. Martin, 15 How. 198, 208; Roberts v. Nelson, 8 Blatchf. 74; Cooke v. United States, 2 Wall. 218. In Morgan v. Morgan it was laid down by Chief Justice Marshall that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court having once vested between citizens of different States, could not be divested by a change of domicil of one of the parties, and his removal…
  • Travelers' Protective Ass'n of Am. v. Smith, 71 F.2d 511 (4th Cir. 1934)
    …court attached. And it is perfectly clear that the jurisdiction was not defeated or the removal rendered improper by the remittitur subsequently filed. Kirby v. American Soda Fountain Co., 194 U. S. 141, 24 S. Ct. 619, 48 L. Ed. 911; Cook v. U. S., 2 Wall. 218, 17 L. Ed. 755; Hayward v. Nordberg Mfg. Co. (C. C. A. 6th) 85 F. 4; Riggs v. Clark (C. C. A. 6th) 71 F. 560; Kane v. Reserve Oil Corporation (D. G.) 52 F.(2d) 972; Twin Hills Gasoline Co. v. Bradford Oil Corp. (D. C.) 264 F. 440; Jellison v. Krell…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw