TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Zeckendorf v. Johnson

Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U.S. 617 (1887)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
December 12, 1887
Judges
Waite
Citations
123 U.S. 6178 S. Ct. 26131 L. Ed. 2771887 U.S. LEXIS 2202
Syllabus
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. The value of the matter in dispute is to he determined by the amount due at the time of the judgment of the court helow, which is brought here for review, including interest up to the time of the judgment of the Appellate Court, if the appeal is from an Appellate Court, and the judgment which is taken to the Appellate Court bears interest. Findings of fact in the court helow are conclusive, and cannot be reexamined here.
Summary
This was a motion to dismiss, with which was united a motion to affirm. The case is 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.

A judgment was rendered September 28, 1885, by the District Court of Arizona, in and for the. county of Pima, against L. Zeckendorf & Co., the appellants, and in favor of Johnson, the appellee, for $4304.93, “with interest on $2800..of said sum, af the rate of two per cent per month from the date hereof until paid, and interest on $1504.33, at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the date hereof until paid.” This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory, on appeal, November 8, 1886. From that judgment of affirmance this appeal was taken, which the appellee moves to dis"miss, on the ground that the value of the matter in dispute does not exceed $5000, as now required by law. Act of March 3, 1885, c. 355, 23 Stat. 443 .

The value of the matter in dispute is to be determined by the amount due at the time of the judgment brought here for review, to wit, the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territpry, and not at the time of the judgment of the District Court. Adding the interest to the judgment of the District Court until the date of that of the Supreme Court, as we must for the purpose of determining our jurisdiction, The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451 ;

N. Y. Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National Bank, 118 U. S. 608 , we find that.the amount due at the time of the judgment of the Supreme Court was considerably more than $5000. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.

But, on looking into the record, we discover that the errors assigned relate only to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings. . These we cannot consider. The findings of fact by the court below are conclusive, and cannot be reexamined here.

The Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440 , and cases there cited. Upon the facts as found there can be no doubt of the correctness of the judgment. It is apparent if the case is kept here longer it will be for .delay only. For that reason the motion to affirm is granted.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1889: 21890: 11891: 11892: 31893: 11898: 11908: 11909: 11914: 11921: 11947: 118892026peak 1892 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lewis v. Farrah180 P.2d 578 (Ariz. 1947)
  2. Steinfeld v. Zeckendorf138 P. 1044 (Ariz. 1914)
  3. In re Ewa Plantation Co.19 Haw. 72 (1908)
  4. Keller v. Ashford133 U.S. 610 (1890)
  5. Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co.145 U.S. 428 (1892)
  6. Idaho & Oregon Land Improvement Co. v. Bradbury132 U.S. 509 (1889)

Most recent

  1. Lewis v. Farrah180 P.2d 578 (Ariz. 1947)
  2. James v. City of Newberg201 P. 212 (Or. 1921)
  3. Steinfeld v. Zeckendorf138 P. 1044 (Ariz. 1914)
  4. Schwyhart v. Barrett122 S.W. 1049 (Mo. 1909)
  5. In re Ewa Plantation Co.19 Haw. 72 (1908)
  6. Naeglin v. De Cordoba171 U.S. 638 (1898)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
The" Abbotsford", 98 U.S. 440 (1879) 77
N.Y. Elevated R.R. v. Fifth Nat'l Bank, 118 U.S. 608 (1886) 12
The Patapsco, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 451 (1871) 8

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