SCHACKER
v.
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
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 in an insurance assumpsit case because the amount actually in dispute—$1,400 plus interest—fell below the Court's jurisdictional threshold of $2,000, even though the plaintiff's declaration claimed $3,000 in damages. The Court held that in determining jurisdiction over money demands where the general issue is pleaded, the actual debt claimed in the body of the declaration controls, not the damages alleged in the prayer for judgment.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
On opening this record, we find that the action below was assumpsit upon a policy of insurance for $1,400. There are two counts in the declaration, but they are both upon the same' cause of action; and although the damages, both in the writ and declaration, are laid at $3,000, it is apparent from the whole record that there could not be a recovery in •any event for -more than $1,400 and interest from July 14, 1873.
Our jurisdiction, when this writ issued, was limited in cases of this character to those in which the “matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of $2,000.” Rev. Stat.,-sect. 692. Now, in the same class of cases, where a judgment or decree has been rendered since May 1, 1875, the amount must be $5,000. 18 Stat. 316.
In Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337, we held, that “in an action upon a money demand, whére the general issue is pleaded, the matter in dispute is the debt claimed, and its amount, as stated in the body of the declaration, and.not merely the damages alleged or the prayer ,for judgment at its conclusion must be considered in determining whether this court can take jurisdiction.” Applying this rule, which is clearly right, to the present case, it is ordered that the writ of error be
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smithers v. Smith, 204 U.S. 632 (U.S. 1907)…er, 179 U. S. 58; unless, upon inspection of the plaintiff’s declaration, it appears that, as a matter of law, it is not possible for the plaintiff to recover the jurisdictional amount. Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337; Schacker v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 93 U. S. 241; Vance v. Vandercook Company, 170 U. S. 468; North American Company v. Morrison, 178 U. S. 262. The rule that the plaintiff’s allegations of value govern, in determining the jurisdiction, except where upon the face of his own pleadings it is not leg…
-
Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1883)…ns of jurisdiction, but it is equally true that when it is shown that the sum demanded is not the real matter in dispute, the sum shown, and not the sum demanded, will prevail. Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337; Schacker v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 93 U. S. 241; Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U. S. 564; Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 6; Banking Association v. Insurance Association, 102 U. S. 121. Under this rule it has always been assumed, since Cooke v. Woodrow, supra, that when a defendant brought a case, h…
-
Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1878)…e body of the declaration, and not merely the damages alleged, or the prayer for judgment, at its conclusion, must be considered in determining whether this court can take jurisdiction.” To the same effect is Schacker v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. (93 U. S. 241), where wé dismissed a ease in which it appeared that the action was upon a policy of insurance for $1,400, because, although damages to our jurisdictional amount were claimed, it was apparent from the whole record that there could not be a recovery…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337 (U.S. 1863)