TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway v. Knox

Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Knox

Wabash, St. Louis & Pac. Ry. v. Knox, 110 U.S. 304 (1884)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 4, 1884
Judges
Waite
Citations
110 U.S. 3043 S. Ct. 63828 L. Ed. 1551884 U.S. LEXIS 1694
Syllabus
When the amount in dispute in this court is less than $5,000 the court cannot take jurisdiction.
Summary
IN EEEOE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Motion to dismiss.

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.

The judgment in this case was for $5,237.15, but the record shows in many ways that of this amount $727.42 was admitted to be due. A formal tender of that sum was made on the 26th of February, 1883, and the money deposited-in court for Knox, the plaintiff, where it remained until the 14th of March, nine days after the judgment was rendered, when it was withdrawn by the railroad company, without prejudice, on the order of the court and with the consent and agreement of Knox. The bill of exceptions also shows an admitted liability of the company for the amount of the tender. The case is, therefore, in all material respects, like that of Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 6 , where the writ was dismissed, although the judg *305 ment was for $8,233.59, because, by an agreeed statement of facts in the record, it appeared that the defendant admitted he owed $5,099.59 of the amount recovered. To the same effect is Jenness v. Citizens' National Bank of Rome, ante, 52. The amount' in dispute here is no more than was in dispute-below, and that was less than $5,000.

The motion to dismiss is gra/nted.

How later courts describe this case

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

1887: 11891: 11892: 11902: 11917: 11932: 118872026peak 1887 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Municipality of Rio Piedras v. Serra, Garabis & Co.65 F.2d 691 (1st Cir. 1932)
  2. Gibson v. Shufeldt122 U.S. 27 (1887)
  3. New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Gay145 U.S. 123 (1892)
  4. Baker v. Union Stock Yards National Bank89 N.W. 269 (Neb. 1902)
  5. Gorman v. Havird141 U.S. 206 (1891)
  6. Intercontinental Rubber Co. v. Boston & M. R. R.245 F. 122 (D. Mass. 1917)

Most recent

  1. Municipality of Rio Piedras v. Serra, Garabis & Co.65 F.2d 691 (1st Cir. 1932)
  2. Intercontinental Rubber Co. v. Boston & M. R. R.245 F. 122 (D. Mass. 1917)
  3. Baker v. Union Stock Yards National Bank89 N.W. 269 (Neb. 1902)
  4. New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Gay145 U.S. 123 (1892)
  5. Gorman v. Havird141 U.S. 206 (1891)
  6. Gibson v. Shufeldt122 U.S. 27 (1887)

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
Tintsman v. Nat'l Bank, 100 U.S. 6 (1879) 20

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