GRAY
v.
BLANCHARD
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 a money dispute case where the defendant claimed jurisdiction based on a $10,000 set-off notice, but the record showed the actual amount in controversy was only approximately $2,000. The Court held that in determining jurisdictional amount, courts must look to the actual matter in dispute as revealed by the entire record, not merely the pleaded claims or prayer for judgment, and must dismiss cases where the true amount in controversy falls below the jurisdictional threshold.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error sued out by the defendant below, when the judgment against him upon a money demand was for only $1,118.71... Prima facie this is the measure of our jurisdiction in. favor of the present plaintiff in error; but he still thinks we must retain the cause, as the record shows that, having pleaded the general issue, he gave notice of set-off, claiming $10,000. It is true that such notice was given, but it is shown affirmatively by the record that the only dispute upon the trial under the notice was as to a single item, of the amount of $446; In short, the bill of exceptions shows distinctly that the only controversy between the parties was in respect to a claim by the plaintiff below of about $2,000, and by the defendant (plaintiff in error) as to this item of set-off. In his application for the removal of the cause from the State court to the Circuit Court, the plaintiff in error made this statement, to wit: “ The matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum of $500, and is of the value of $2,000; ” and the judge, in his charge to the jury, alluded to the fact that the amount in controversy was not sufficient to entitle the parties to a review in this court.
In Lee v. Watson (1 Wall. 337), it was held that “in an action upon a money demand, where 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.” 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 for more than the amount of the policy, and a small sum in addition for interest.
The principles upon which those cases rest are decisive of this. While in the absence of any thing to the contrary the prayer for judgment by the plaintiff, in his declaration or complaint, upon a demand for money only, or by the defendant in his counter-claim or set-off, will be taken as indicating the amount in dispute, yet if the actual amount in dispute does otherwise appear in the record, reference may be had to that for the purpose of determining our jurisdiction. Ordinarily this will be found in the pleadings, b.ut we need not necessarily confine ourselves to them. We hear the case upon the record which is sent up, and if, taking the whole record together, it appears that we have no jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed. Here it is affirmatively shown that the value of the “ matter in dispute ” is less than our jurisdictional amount. The motion to dismiss will therefore be granted, and it is
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1882)…equitable claims of the parties to the subject of the suit, which was, not merely the amount of the rent claimed, but the title of the respective parties to the land. On that ground alone the jurisdiction of the court was upheld. Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U. S. 564, and Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 id. 6, are instances of the strict application 'of the rule' limiting the jurisdiction to the amount actually in dispute in the suit; of which a similar example is found in Parker v. Morrill, ante, p. 1, decided a…
-
Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1883)…ally 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, here, the judgment or decree again…
-
Banking Ass'n v. Ins. Ass'n, 102 U.S. 121 (U.S. 1880)…een the parties is as to the right of the insurance association to'withhold a transfer of stock until an indebtedness of a stockholder- to it for $2,074.-36 is paid. Such being the case, we have no jurisdiction of this .appeal. In Gray v. Blanchard (97 U. S. 564) we. held that'a writ of error must be dismissed when it’ appears from the record, taken as a whole, that .the amount actually in controversy between the’parties was not sufficient to give-us-jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Schacker v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 93 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1876)