TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

New York Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National Bank

N.Y. Elevated R.R. v. Fifth Nat'l Bank, 118 U.S. 608 (1886)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 8, 1886
Judges
Waite, Field
Citations
118 U.S. 6087 S. Ct. 2330 L. Ed. 2591886 U.S. LEXIS 1952
Syllabus
The value of the matter in dispute in this court is determined by the amount of the judgment below, without regard to the amount of the verdict. Jurisdiction of a cause having once attached in this court, cannot be defeated by plaintiff below waiving or releasing enough of the judgment to bring it within the jurisdictional amount.
Summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF'NEW YORK. This was a motion to dismiss on the ground that the matter in dispute did not exceed the sum or value of $5000. The suit was brought by the Fifth National Bank of the City of New York against the New York Elevated Railroad Company, to recover damages for injuries to real estate. A trial was had, which resulted in a verdict against the railroad company, on the 9th of June, 1886, for $5000. At the time of the rendition of the verdict the railroad company moved for a new trial. This motion was denied on the 10th of August, and, on the 26th of the same month, a judgment was entered for $5068.33, that being the amount of the verdict, with interest added to the date of the judgment. The claim now made was, that the value of the matter in dispute was to be determined by the verdict, without the interest.

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 rule is settled that, when a writ of error is sued out from this court by the defendant below, and no question is presented growing out of a partial defence to the action, or a counter-claim or a set-off, the value of the matter in dispute is fixed by the amount of the judgment.

Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 33 ;

Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165 ;

Henderson v. Wadsworth, 115 U. S. 264, 276 . Our jurisdiction cannot be invoked *610 •until after a final judgment, and, until such a judgment has been rendered, the cause remains in the full judicial control of the court in which it is pending. It was because of this that we declined to take jurisdiction in Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694 , where the verdict was for more than $5000, but was reduced to that amount, by leave of the court, before the judgment, which was for the reduced sum. It is true that our jurisdiction depends on the amount of the judgment, exclusive of interest thereon, Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73 ;

Western Union Telegraph Co.

v. Rogers, 93 U. S. 565, 566 ; but here the interest accrued before judgment, and not after. In The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451 , jurisdiction was taken in a case where the decree was for $1982, “ and interest from the date of the report,” which made more than $2000 due at the time of the decree, that being then the jurisdictional limit.

As the jurisdiction has once attached it cannot be defeated by a waiver, or release of the amount in excess of $5000.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Mr. Justice Field took no part in this decision.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1887: 11888: 11889: 11890: 31891: 11896: 11899: 11904: 11925: 11980: 118872026peak 1890 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Decker v. Williams73 F. 308 (D. Alaska 1896)
  2. Keller v. Ashford133 U.S. 610 (1890)
  3. United States v. John Jay Beattie613 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1980)
  4. Quebec Steamship Co. v. Merchant133 U.S. 375 (1890)
  5. Massachusetts Benefit Assn. v. Miles137 U.S. 689 (1891)
  6. Zeckendorf v. Johnson123 U.S. 617 (1887)

Most recent

  1. United States v. John Jay Beattie613 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1980)
  2. Tope v. Nichols232 P. 590 (Kan. 1925)
  3. Oliver v. Love78 S.W. 335 (Mo. Ct. App. 1904)
  4. Hale v. Grogan50 S.W. 257 (Ky. Ct. App. 1899)
  5. Decker v. Williams73 F. 308 (D. Alaska 1896)
  6. Massachusetts Benefit Assn. v. Miles137 U.S. 689 (1891)

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 7

DepthCaseCited by
Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165 (1883) 94
Thompson v. Butler, 95 U.S. 694 (1878) 29
Gordon v. Ogden, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 33 (1830) 21
Henderson v. Wadsworth, 115 U.S. 264 (1885) 20
Knapp v. Banks, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 73 (1844) 18
The Patapsco, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 451 (1871) 8
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Rogers, 93 U.S. 565 (1876) 3

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