TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dennison v. Alexander

Dennison v. Alexander, 103 U.S. 522 (1880)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
December 13, 1880
Docket
No. 98
Judges
Waite
Citations
103 U.S. 52226 L. Ed. 31313 Otto 5221880 U.S. LEXIS 2149
Headnotes
A judgment or a. decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia cannot be re-examined here, unless the matter .in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the value of $2,600.
Summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of. Columbia. Alexander, on the fifth day of January, 1875, filed his bill in the court below against Dennison and others, commissioners of the District of Columbia, hnd the First National Bank, to restrain the sale of real estate in the city of Washington which the commissioners had advertised to satisfy the amount due for improvements made by the board of public works.- The certificate of indebtedness issued by that board and transferred to the bank, was for less than $400 and more than $100. A perpetual injunction was awarded and an appeal allowed by a justice of this 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.

We think this case is governed by Railroad Company v. Grand, 98 U. S. 398 . In that case we held that the act of .Feb. 25, 1879, c. 99, sects. 4, 5 ( 20 Stat. 320 ), took away our' tight to hear and determine cases from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia where the matter in dispute did not exceed $2,500, and that it operated on pending cases which had been brought here under the provision^ of sect. 847 of tbe Revised Statutes relating to the District. This case came here under sect. 848, which provided for the allowance of appeals and writs of error by the justices of this court under certain circumstances, when the matter in dispute was less- than- $1,000, the then general jurisdictional amount, but exceeded $100. There is no reservation in the repealing, act' as to this class of pending - cases any more than the other. Both sections have reference *523 to the same general subject-matter, that is to say, our review of the judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the District in cases where jurisdiction has been made to depend on the value of the matter in dispute. Under the act of 1879 we can no longer hear any of that class of cases, unless the'amount exceeds- $2,500.

Appeal dismissed, each party to pay his own costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1893: 21909: 11927: 118932026peak 1893 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Lennox296 S.W. 325 (Tex. App. 1927)
  2. Theo Poull & Co. v. Foy-Hays Construction Co.48 So. 785 (Ala. 1909)
  3. UNITED STATES ex rel. TRASK v. WANAMAKER147 U.S. 149 (1893)
  4. In re Schneider148 U.S. 157 (1893)

Most recent

  1. Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Lennox296 S.W. 325 (Tex. App. 1927)
  2. Theo Poull & Co. v. Foy-Hays Construction Co.48 So. 785 (Ala. 1909)
  3. In re Schneider148 U.S. 157 (1893)
  4. UNITED STATES ex rel. TRASK v. WANAMAKER147 U.S. 149 (1893)

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
R.R. Co. v. Grant, 98 U.S. 398 (1879) 136

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