Cogswell v. Fordyce

Supreme Court

Cogswell v. Fordyce

128 U.S. 391, 9 S. Ct. 112, 32 L. Ed. 484, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2225

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 19, 1888

Docket63

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 U.S. 391 (Cogswell v. Fordyce) 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

Cogswell v. Fordyce, 128 U.S. 391, 9 S. Ct. 112, 32 L. Ed. 484, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2225 (1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

After stating the facts as above reported, he continued: This court cannot’ take cognizanceAf this case. The matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, does not exceed the sum or value of $5000. ' Rev. Stat., §§ 690, 691; Act of February 16, 1875, c. 77, §§ 3, 4, 18 Stat. 315; Richardson’s Suppl. Rev. Stat. 136.

It was, perhaps, supposed that our jurisdiction could be- sustained under "the fourth subdivision of § 699 of the Revised Statutes, providing that this court may, without regard to the sum or value in dispute, review any final'judgment at law or final decree in equity of any Circuit Court or of any District Court acting as a Circuit Court, “ in any case brought on account of the deprivation of any • right, privilege, or’ immunity ■secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.” But’ an action upon a bond given to supersede a judgment or decree of a court of the' United States, cannot properly be said to have been brought on any such account. The mere failure or refusal of the obligors in such a bond to comply with its terms is not, within the meaning of the statute referred to, a “ deprivation ” of a right secured to the obligee by the Constitution of the. United States, or of any right or privilege belonging to him, as a citizen of the United States. See Bowman v . Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 115 U. S. 611, 615. ,

The writ of error is dismissed.

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

Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

After stating the facts as above reported, he continued: This court cannot’ take cognizanceAf this case. The matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, does not exceed the sum or value of $5000. ' Rev. Stat., §§ 690, 691; Act of February 16, 1875, c. 77, §§ 3, 4, 18 Stat. 315; Richardson’s Suppl. Rev. Stat. 136.

It was, perhaps, supposed that our jurisdiction could be- sustained under "the fourth subdivision of § 699 of the Revised Statutes, providing that this court may, without regard to the sum or value in dispute, review any final'judgment at law or final decree in equity of any Circuit Court or of any District Court acting as a Circuit Court, “ in any case brought on account of the deprivation of any • right, privilege, or’ immunity ■secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.” But’ an action upon a bond given to supersede a judgment or decree of a court of the' United States, cannot properly be said to have been brought on any such account. The mere failure or refusal of the obligors in such a bond to comply with its terms is not, within the meaning of the statute referred to, a “ deprivation ” of a right secured to the obligee by the Constitution of the. United States, or of any right or privilege belonging to him, as a citizen of the United States. See Bowman v . Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 115 U. S. 611, 615. ,

The writ of error is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 U.S. 391, 9 S. Ct. 112, 32 L. Ed. 484, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cogswell-v-fordyce-scotus-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack