TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

John Smith T. v. Honey

John Smith T. vs. John W. Honey

John Smith T. v. Honey, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 469 (1830)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 22, 1830
Citations
28 U.S. 4697 L. Ed. 7443 Pet. 4691830 U.S. LEXIS 553
Summary
ERROR from the district court of Missouri.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion

Where the verdict for the plaintiff in the circuit court is for a less amount than two thousand dollars, and the defendant prosecutes a writ of error, this court has not jurisdiction; although the demand of the plaintiff in the suit exceeded two thousand dollars.

In the district court of Missouri, John W. Honey instituted an action of trespass on the case for the recovery of damages from John Smith T., the defendant in the action, for the.use of a “ new and useful -improvement in screening tables for discriminating, selecting and separating perfect from imperfect shot,” for which letters patent had been granted to the plaintiff by the United States. The damages were laid in the declaration at two thousand dollars •, and at. September term. 1827 the cause was tried, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff, for one hundred dollars, upon which judgment was • entered for the plaintiff below.

On.the trial, the counsel for the defendant filed several bills of exceptions to. the opinion of the court, and prosecuted this writ of error.

After the case was opened for the plaintiff in error, the court ordered the writ of error to be dismissed, the same having been sued out-by the defendant in the district court, and the süm in- controversy, as to him, being no more than one hundred dollars, the amount of the verdict in that court. See the casé of Gordon vs.

Ogden, at this term; -ante p. 33.

The court overruled the motion.

How later courts describe this case

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

1854–1855: 11858–1859: 11882–1883: 11892–1893: 11896–1897: 11898–1899: 12024–2025: 118542026peak 1854 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hilton v. Dickinson108 U.S. 165 (1883)
  2. Kanouse v. Martin56 U.S. (15 How.) 198 (1854)
  3. Tipton v. Chambers58 Ky. 565 (1859)
  4. Richmond v. Brummie52 Kan. 247 (1893)
  5. Decker v. Williams73 F. 308 (D. Alaska 1896)
  6. Draper v. Clark59 Ohio St. (N.S.) 336 (1898)

Most recent

  1. Cruz v. Cameron Financial Group IncorporatedNo. 2:23-cv-01112 (D. Ariz. Jan. 29, 2024)
  2. Draper v. Clark59 Ohio St. (N.S.) 336 (1898)
  3. Decker v. Williams73 F. 308 (D. Alaska 1896)
  4. Richmond v. Brummie52 Kan. 247 (1893)
  5. Hilton v. Dickinson108 U.S. 165 (1883)
  6. Tipton v. Chambers58 Ky. 565 (1859)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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