TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Patapsco

The Patapsco, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 451 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
December 18, 1871
Citations
79 U.S. 45120 L. Ed. 45712 Wall. 4511870 U.S. LEXIS 1217
Syllabus
Upon a decree in the Circuit Court for a sum less than $2000, “ with interest from a date named,” an appeal lies here under the statute which gives an appeal “where the sum in dispute . . . exceeds $2000,” provided that the sum for which the decree is given and the interest added to it together exceed $2080..
Summary
Boyce filed a libel in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, against the steamer Patapsco, claiming $1724. That court dismissed the libel; but, on appeal, 'the Circuit Court reversed the'decree and sent the case to a master, to report the amount due. The master, on the 15th July, 1868, reported $1982. The Circuit Court confirmed the report, and on the 11th February, 1870, decreed in favor of the libellant for the amount reported, with interest from the date of the report. Adding the one year, six months, and twenty-six days’ interest to the amount given by the report the sum was $2200 and upwards. On this state of facts, Mr. Orville Horwitz, for the appellee* moved to dismiss, on the ground that the $2000 necessary to give this court jurisdiction did not exist, unless by adding interest to the amount claimed, or to that reported due. The statute, it will be remembered, gives an appeal “ where the sum in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds

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

Opinion

The CHIEF JUSTICE:

The decree of the Circuit Court was for the amount reported due the libellant on the 15th July, 1868, $1982, and interest from the date of the report.

We think that interest to the date of the decree must be computed as a part of the sum for which the decree was rendered. The sum thus, computed exceeds $2000, and the motion must, therefore, be Denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1886–1887: 21888–1889: 11890–1891: 31898–1899: 11916–1917: 118862026peak 1890 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fields v. Hobn136 Tenn. 630 (1916)
  2. Keller v. Ashford133 U.S. 610 (1890)
  3. Massachusetts Benefit Assn. v. Miles137 U.S. 689 (1891)
  4. Zeckendorf v. Johnson123 U.S. 617 (1887)
  5. New York Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National Bank118 U.S. 608 (1886)
  6. District of Columbia v. Gannon130 U.S. 227 (1889)

Most recent

  1. Fields v. Hobn136 Tenn. 630 (1916)
  2. Hale v. Grogan50 S.W. 257 (Ky. Ct. App. 1899)
  3. Massachusetts Benefit Assn. v. Miles137 U.S. 689 (1891)
  4. Griffith v. Baltimore & O. R.44 F. 574 (1890)
  5. Keller v. Ashford133 U.S. 610 (1890)
  6. District of Columbia v. Gannon130 U.S. 227 (1889)

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