WALKER
v.
UNITED STATES
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 dismissed a writ of error because the amount in controversy did not exceed the jurisdictional threshold of two thousand dollars required by the Judiciary Act. The Court clarified that when determining whether it has jurisdiction to review a Circuit Court judgment, the relevant sum is the amount claimed in the declaration if the defendant appeals a judgment against the plaintiff, but the amount of the judgment itself if the plaintiff appeals a judgment for the defendant, with neither interest nor costs included in the calculation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. By the terms of the twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act the jurisdiction of this court to re-examine the judgments of the Circuit Court, is limited to cases where the matter in dispute -exceeds the sum or value of two thousand dollars. It has been a good deal controverted whether the sum or value in controversy is to be determined by reference to the amount claimed or the amount of the judgment, or the amount in dispute in this court. It has been long settled, however, that when the judgment is for the defendant or for the plaintiff*, and for less than two thousand dollars, and the plaintiff sues out the writ of error, this court has jurisdiction if the damages claimed in'the declaration exceed that sum; but that if the judgment is for plaintiff and not more than two thousand dollars, and the defendant prosecutes in error, this court has not jurisdiction, for the amount in controversy, as to the defendant, is fixed by the judgment.† In deter .mining the jurisdictional sum or amount it is obvious that neither interest on the judgment nor costs of suit can enter into the computation, for costs form no part of the matter in dispute, and interest on the judgment can only arise after rendition, while the jurisdictional amount, if determined by the judgment, is fixed at rendition. And this was settled in Knapp v. Banks. * In that case some expressions in the opinion and in the order seem to support the idea that if the amount of the matter in controversy is precisely two thousand dollars a writ of error will lie. But the attention of the court was not directed to such a case, and we are not aware that such a case until now was ever before the court. But there is nothing doubtful in the rules applicable to it. This court has no appellate jurisdiction, except such as is defined by Congress. The act of Congress limits this jurisdiction to cases where'the matter in dispute exceeds two-thousand dollars. We can no more take jurisdiction where the matter does not exceed than we can where it is less than that sum. The amount in controversy in the case before us, ascertained in conformity with the settled principles of the court, does not exceed two thousand dollars. We have, therefore, no jurisdiction of the writ of error, and it must be Dismissed. * 2 Howard, 73. † Cooke v. Woodruff, 5 Cranch, 13; Wise v. Columbian Turnpike Co., 7 Id. 276; Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Peters, 33; Smith v. Honey, Id. 469. * 2 Howard, 73.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Mordt v. Robinson, 116 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1934)…. Civ. App.), 98 S. W. Rep. 897; Regina v. Patton, 7 U. C. D. Q. B. 83; United States v. Prescott, 3 Howard (U. S.) 578, 11 L. Ed. 734; United States v. Morgan, 11 Howard (U. S.) 154, 13 L. Ed. 643; United States v. Dashiell, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 182, 18 L. Ed. 319; Smythe v. United States, 188 U. S. 156, 47 L. Ed. 425, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 279; State, ex rel. Cook v. Fidelity & Dep. Co. of Md., 91 W. Va. 191, 112 S. E. Rep. 319. Whether or not the court should apportion the funds remaining in the solvent bank a…
-
Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1903)…for want of jurisdiction in this courts In Pratt v. Fitzhugh, 1 Black, 271, 273, which was a cause in admiralty: “Without the fact of value being shown on the record, or by evidence aliunde, the court has no jurisdictions In Walker v. United States, 4 Wall. 163, 165, which was an action on a judgment for money: “This court has no appellate jurisdiction, except such as is defined by Congress. The act of Congress limits this jurisdiction to cases where the matter in dispute exceeds $2000. We can no more take…
-
Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1883)…nsequently 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.” The rule, as thus stated by Mr. Justice Story, was cited in Walker 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…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Alexander Gordon and others v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 33 (U.S. 1830)
- Cooke and Others v. Woodrow, 5 Cranch 13 (U.S. 1809)