TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tintsman v. National Bank

Tintsman v. Nat'l Bank, 100 U.S. 6 (1879)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 18, 1879
Judges
Waite
Citations
100 U.S. 625 L. Ed. 5301879 U.S. LEXIS 1793
Cited by 20
Headnotes
Where, by an agreed statement of facts in the nature of a special verdict, the plaintiff’s claim was admitted by the defendant,- except the sum of $3,134.20, — Held, that that sum was the amount actually in dispute, and although judgment was rendered below for the entire claini, being, more than $5,000, the writ of error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. '
Summary
•Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of'Pennsylvania. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

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

Opinion — Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

In Gray v. Blanchard ( 97 U. S. 564 ), we held that a case must be dismissed, if, on an examination of the whole record,' it appeared that the value of the matter actually in dispute between the parties was less than our jurisdictional amount. This writ of error was brought by the defendant below to reverse a judgment against him of more than $5,000; but on looking into the record we find that the ca¡se was heard on an agreed statement of facts in the nature of a special verdict, in which it appeared that the plaintiff claimed of the defendant $8,238.79, and interest from June 4, 1876. The defendant admitted that he owed of this amount $5,099.59, for which the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment. The only controversy was as to the liability of the defendant for the difference between - what he admitted to. be due and what the plaintiff claimed, or $3,134.20. This, then, is the amount actually in dispute,'and as it is less than $5,000, we have no jurisdiction.

Writ dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →
1883–1884: 51885–1886: 11891–1892: 21893–1894: 41901–1902: 11915–1916: 11925–1926: 11931–1932: 11937–1938: 11939–1940: 11941–1942: 11963–1964: 118832026peak 1883 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Municipality of Rio Piedras v. Serra, Garabis & Co.65 F.2d 691 (1st Cir. 1932)
  2. Sadler v. Pennsylvania Refining Co31 F. Supp. 1 (W.D.S.C. 1940)
  3. American United Life Ins. v. Franklin97 F.2d 76 (8th Cir. 1938)
  4. McCrowell v. Burson79 Va. 290 (1884)
  5. Household Finance Corporation of Atlanta v. Charles B. Jones322 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1963)
  6. Le Roy v. Hartwick229 F. 857 (E.D. Ark. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Household Finance Corporation of Atlanta v. Charles B. Jones322 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1963)
  2. New York Credit Men's Ass'n v. Brown118 F.2d 6 (2d Cir. 1941)
  3. Sadler v. Pennsylvania Refining Co31 F. Supp. 1 (W.D.S.C. 1940)
  4. American United Life Ins. v. Franklin97 F.2d 76 (8th Cir. 1938)
  5. Municipality of Rio Piedras v. Serra, Garabis & Co.65 F.2d 691 (1st Cir. 1932)
  6. Vandermost v. Withrow243 P. 1116 (Or. 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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U.S. 564 (1878) 27

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