Clay Center v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

Supreme Court

Clay Center v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

145 U.S. 224, 12 S. Ct. 817, 36 L. Ed. 685, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2134

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 16, 1892

Docket339

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 145 U.S. 224 (Clay Center v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clay Center v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 145 U.S. 224, 12 S. Ct. 817, 36 L. Ed. 685, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2134 (1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit to recover of the city of Clay Center two instalments of hydrant rental for eighteen hundred and fifty dollars each, with interest. These rentals were claimed to be *225 due under an alleged contract in-respect of the erection of water-works, between the city and one Bonebrake and a "Water-works company, his assignee and successor, and to .be payable under said contract to the -Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, trustee in a trust deed tó secure bonds issued by the Water-works company for the purpose of borrowing money to complete the construction of the, works.

The bill prayed that the city be decreed to have contracted with the Trust Company to pay directly to it so much of the hydrant rental as might be necessary to pay the interest on the bonds, and to pay the two instalments then due with interest. The decree sustained the contract and the liability to pay the Trust Company directly and awarded recovery to the amount of $4042.65. ' This was all that could be recovered in this suit, if the contract were valid and binding as found. If the Circuit. Court had arrived at the contrary conclusion on that point, this was' all that in this suit complainant could have lost; and as in the latter contingency complainant could not have brought the case here, so. def éndant cannot, because the decree, which allowed all that was claimed, is for less than the jurisdictional amount. The value of the matter in dispute was the accrued rental and interest, and although the determination that such rental was due and should be paid to the trustee involved the existence and validity of the contract, yet causes of action for hydrant rentak which had not accrued but might subsequently accrue cannot be availed of to make out jurisdiction of the case by this court upon appeal. New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Gay, ante 123.

The appeal is'’

Dismissed for. want ofjurisdiction.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit to recover of the city of Clay Center two instalments of hydrant rental for eighteen hundred and fifty dollars each, with interest. These rentals were claimed to be *225 due under an alleged contract in-respect of the erection of water-works, between the city and one Bonebrake and a "Water-works company, his assignee and successor, and to .be payable under said contract to the -Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, trustee in a trust deed tó secure bonds issued by the Water-works company for the purpose of borrowing money to complete the construction of the, works.

The bill prayed that the city be decreed to have contracted with the Trust Company to pay directly to it so much of the hydrant rental as might be necessary to pay the interest on the bonds, and to pay the two instalments then due with interest. The decree sustained the contract and the liability to pay the Trust Company directly and awarded recovery to the amount of $4042.65. ' This was all that could be recovered in this suit, if the contract were valid and binding as found. If the Circuit. Court had arrived at the contrary conclusion on that point, this was' all that in this suit complainant could have lost; and as in the latter contingency complainant could not have brought the case here, so. def éndant cannot, because the decree, which allowed all that was claimed, is for less than the jurisdictional amount. The value of the matter in dispute was the accrued rental and interest, and although the determination that such rental was due and should be paid to the trustee involved the existence and validity of the contract, yet causes of action for hydrant rentak which had not accrued but might subsequently accrue cannot be availed of to make out jurisdiction of the case by this court upon appeal. New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Gay, ante 123.

The appeal is'’

Dismissed for. want ofjurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 U.S. 224, 12 S. Ct. 817, 36 L. Ed. 685, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-center-v-farmers-loan-trust-co-scotus-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack