TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cooke v. United States

Cooke v. United States, 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 218 (1864)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
December 28, 1864
Citations
69 U.S. 21817 L. Ed. 7552 Wall. 2181864 U.S. LEXIS 424
Syllabus
1. The mere fact that an act of Congress authorizes a judgment obtained' by the Government against a party, to he discharged by the payment of a sum less than $2000, is no ground to ask a dismissal of a case of ■which the'court had properly obtained jurisdiction before the act passed. The party may not ohoose thus to settle the judgment, but prefer to try to reverse it altogether. 2. 'When the sum in controversy is large enough to give thé court jurisdiction of a casé, such jurisdiction once properly obtained, is not taken away by a,subsequent reduction of the sum below the amount requisite.
Summary
In this case tbe United States had obtained adjudgment for $3796,80 against Cooke, who to the same took a writ of error. The Attorney-General now moved the court to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction, and assigned for reason that since the issuing and serving of the writ of error, an act of Congress had reduced the amount in controversy' below the sum of $2000. ' On referring to the act, it appeared to authorize a remission of $2500 from the $3796.80, for which judgment had been obtained; but the remission was offered on condition of payment.of the remaining $1296.80 : and nothing was put before the court to show that Cooke had availed himself of the offer made.

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

Opinion

The CHIEF JUSTICE:

It does not appear that the proposition has'been accepted; and if not, the amount in controversy remains unaffected. But had the alleged reduction 'been made by an actual payment, the jurisdiction of the court would not be taken away. The jurisdictional facts existed at the time of issuing and serving the writ of error. By its issue and service the court obtained jurisdiction over the 'cause, and this jurisdiction once acquired, cannot be taken away by any change in the value of the subject of controversy.

Motion overruled and case retained.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1890: 11902: 11904: 11906: 11908: 11917: 11920: 11926: 21934: 11936: 11938: 11939: 11943: 118902026peak 1926 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Larson v. General Motors Corporation134 F.2d 450 (2d Cir. 1943)
  2. Travelers' Protective Ass'n of America v. Smith71 F.2d 511 (4th Cir. 1934)
  3. Hood ex rel. North Carolina Bank & Trust Co. v. Bell84 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1936)
  4. Nickelson v. Nestles Milk Products Corporation107 F.2d 17 (5th Cir. 1939)
  5. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama161 F. 925 (M.D. Ala. 1908)
  6. Jellison v. Krell Piano Co.246 F. 509 (E.D. Ky. 1917)

Most recent

  1. Larson v. General Motors Corporation134 F.2d 450 (2d Cir. 1943)
  2. Nickelson v. Nestles Milk Products Corporation107 F.2d 17 (5th Cir. 1939)
  3. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.303 U.S. 283 (1938)
  4. Hood ex rel. North Carolina Bank & Trust Co. v. Bell84 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1936)
  5. Travelers' Protective Ass'n of America v. Smith71 F.2d 511 (4th Cir. 1934)
  6. The Kearney14 F.2d 949 (3d Cir. 1926)

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