Cabot v. McMaster

Seventh Circuit

Cabot v. McMaster

65 F. 533, 13 C.C.A. 39, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2243

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 1895

DocketNo. 207

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 65 F. 533 (Cabot v. McMaster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cabot v. McMaster, 65 F. 533, 13 C.C.A. 39, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2243 (7th Cir. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

JENKINS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff brought suit in the court below in debt upon a bond in the penalty of $6,000, averring breaches to his damage $6,000, etc. The defendant pleaded (1) nil debet; (2) [534]*534a traverse of the^breaches assigned; (3) performance and payment.' Issue was joined* by similiter to the first plea, and by replications concluding to the country as to the other pleas. At the trial before the court without a jury, the plaintiff put in evidence the bond and the agreement therein referred «to, and gave evidence tending to prove an indebtedness thereunder of $1,496. The defendant gave evidence tending to prove an extension of time of credit to the person for whom the plaintiff was bound, and the plaintiff, in rebuttal, gave evidence tending to prove that such extension was with the knowledge and concurrence of the defendant. The court thereupon, with; out passing upon the merits of the controversy, dismissed the causé for want of jurisdiction, upon the ground that the amount in controversy was less than the minimum amount necessary to give jurisdiction to the court. Cabot v. McMaster, 61 Fed. 129.

We are without jurisdiction to entertain this writ of error. The dismissal of the suit proceeded solely upon the ground of want of jurisdiction, and there was no adjudication upon the merits. We have held in Manufacturing Co. v. Barber, 18 U. S. App.-, 9 C. C. A. 79, and 60 Fed. 465, that, when the only question presented by the record goes to the jurisdiction of the court below, a review of the determination of that question can only be had in the supreme court. See, also, Railroad Co. v. Meyers, 18 U. S. App.-, 10 C. C. A. 485, and 62 Fed. 367. The writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JENKINS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff brought suit in the court below in debt upon a bond in the penalty of $6,000, averring breaches to his damage $6,000, etc. The defendant pleaded (1) nil debet; (2) [534]*534a traverse of the^breaches assigned; (3) performance and payment.' Issue was joined* by similiter to the first plea, and by replications concluding to the country as to the other pleas. At the trial before the court without a jury, the plaintiff put in evidence the bond and the agreement therein referred «to, and gave evidence tending to prove an indebtedness thereunder of $1,496. The defendant gave evidence tending to prove an extension of time of credit to the person for whom the plaintiff was bound, and the plaintiff, in rebuttal, gave evidence tending to prove that such extension was with the knowledge and concurrence of the defendant. The court thereupon, with; out passing upon the merits of the controversy, dismissed the causé for want of jurisdiction, upon the ground that the amount in controversy was less than the minimum amount necessary to give jurisdiction to the court. Cabot v. McMaster, 61 Fed. 129.

We are without jurisdiction to entertain this writ of error. The dismissal of the suit proceeded solely upon the ground of want of jurisdiction, and there was no adjudication upon the merits. We have held in Manufacturing Co. v. Barber, 18 U. S. App.-, 9 C. C. A. 79, and 60 Fed. 465, that, when the only question presented by the record goes to the jurisdiction of the court below, a review of the determination of that question can only be had in the supreme court. See, also, Railroad Co. v. Meyers, 18 U. S. App.-, 10 C. C. A. 485, and 62 Fed. 367. The writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 F. 533, 13 C.C.A. 39, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabot-v-mcmaster-ca7-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack