Cooke v. United States

69 U.S. 218, 17 L. Ed. 755, 2 Wall. 218, 1864 U.S. LEXIS 424
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided December 28, 1864·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

The CHIEF JUSTICE:

It does not appear that the proposition has'been accepted; and if not, the amount in controversy remains unaffected. But had the alleged reduction 'been made by an actual payment, the jurisdiction of the court would not be taken away. The jurisdictional facts existed at the time of issuing and serving the writ of error. By its issue and service the court obtained jurisdiction over the 'cause, and this jurisdiction once acquired, cannot be taken away by any change in the value of the subject of controversy.

Motion overruled and case retained.

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

Cooke v. United States, 69 U.S. 218, 17 L. Ed. 755, 2 Wall. 218, 1864 U.S. LEXIS 424 (1864).

69 U.S. 218 (Cooke v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Larson v. General Motors Corporation
134 F.2d 450 (Second Circuit, 1943)
Nickelson v. Nestles Milk Products Corporation
107 F.2d 17 (Fifth Circuit, 1939)
Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.
303 U.S. 283 (Supreme Court, 1938)
Travelers' Protective Ass'n of America v. Smith
71 F.2d 511 (Fourth Circuit, 1934)
The Kearney
14 F.2d 949 (Third Circuit, 1926)
Techt v. . Hughes
128 N.E. 185 (New York Court of Appeals, 1920)
Jellison v. Krell Piano Co.
246 F. 509 (E.D. Kentucky, 1917)
Young v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
55 S.E. 765 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1906)
Kirby v. American Soda Fountain Co.
194 U.S. 141 (Supreme Court, 1904)
Knopfi v. Gilsonite Roofing & Paving Co.
92 Mo. App. 279 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
The Tolchester
42 F. 180 (D. Maryland, 1890)