TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

Peyton v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc., 124 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1941)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 23, 1941
Docket
No. 9893
Judges
Foster, Holmes, Hutcheson
Citations
124 F.2d 4301941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2520

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brought this suit to recover damages totalling $750,000. It was dismissed by the District Court for want of jurisdiction. The undisputed facts are that Peyton was a writer and had prepared certain manuscript, which he tried to send by express to different people, in the hope of having a favorable review of it and thereby find a publisher. The package was never delivered to the persons to whom it was addressed and it may be assumed the express company is liable in damages but there may be some doubt about that owing to the imperfect addresses given to the express company.

Appellant appeared in person and argued his case in a very interesting manner. The suit is a common law action and not a suit arising under a law to regulate commerce, jurisdiction as to which is governed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 41 (8). Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 223 U.S. 481 , 32 S.Ct. 205 , 56 L.Ed. 516 . Unfortunately, the receipt for the shipment contains a provision limiting the damages to $50 in case of loss. A Federal District Court is without jurisdiction unless the suit involves an amount in controversy exceeding $3,000. In suits for damages the ad *431 damnum usually fixes the amount necessary to give jurisdiction. But that is where the damages are left to the discretion of the jury. Where the damages are fixed by contract of carriage at less than the jurisdictional amount, it is elementary that the 'court can not entertain jurisdiction simply because of allegations of large damages incidental to the breach of contract. Southeastern Express Co. v. Pastime Amusement Co., 299 U.S. 28 , 57 S.Ct. 73 , 81 L.Ed. 20 .

The judgment of thé District Court was right. It is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1942: 11958: 119422026peak 1942 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 223 U.S. 481 (1912) 201
Southeastern Express Co. v. Pastime Amusement Co., 299 U.S. 28 (1936) 100

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list