Magruder v. Armes

Supreme Court

Magruder v. Armes

180 U.S. 496, 21 S. Ct. 454, 45 L. Ed. 638, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1322

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 18, 1901

Docket171

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 U.S. 496 (Magruder v. Armes) 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

Magruder v. Armes, 180 U.S. 496, 21 S. Ct. 454, 45 L. Ed. 638, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1322 (1901).

Pincite

Opinion

*498 Mr. Justice Brewer,

after making the above statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The jurisdiction of this court in ordinary actions in the District of Columbia is limited to cases in which the amount in controversy is over $5000. Act of February 9, 1898, c. 74, § 8, 27 Stat. 434, 436. The fact, as disclosed by the declaration, is that plaintiff paid less than $90 to preserve from sale property worth only $1800. Everything which the defendants did was done by virtue of an order or judgment of a court of this District, having full jurisdiction. Whether such judgment was simply irregular or absolutely void, plaintiff cancelled all her liabilities by the payment of a sum less than $90, and the only property of hers endangered by their action she avers was worth $1800. It is true that in the declaration she charges illegality and spite, but such language is mere matter of epithet. We are guided by the facts as they are stated. There was no personalviolence, no insult; nothing which sometimes rightfully opens the door to punitive damages. Finding that property of the value of $1800 was, as she thought, endangered, she paid $90 to escape the danger. Obviously her assertion that she was damaged to the amount of $6000 was without legal foundation and only made with the purpose of securing a review in this court. Nothing in the facts justified any such assertion. Jurisdiction cannot be vested in this court by a mere claim of damages, unsupported by facts. We do not care to enter into any discussion of this question, but refer simply to Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, 115 U. S. 611, and cases cited in the opinion. The writ of error will be

Dismissed.

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

*498 Mr. Justice Brewer,

after making the above statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The jurisdiction of this court in ordinary actions in the District of Columbia is limited to cases in which the amount in controversy is over $5000. Act of February 9, 1898, c. 74, § 8, 27 Stat. 434, 436. The fact, as disclosed by the declaration, is that plaintiff paid less than $90 to preserve from sale property worth only $1800. Everything which the defendants did was done by virtue of an order or judgment of a court of this District, having full jurisdiction. Whether such judgment was simply irregular or absolutely void, plaintiff cancelled all her liabilities by the payment of a sum less than $90, and the only property of hers endangered by their action she avers was worth $1800. It is true that in the declaration she charges illegality and spite, but such language is mere matter of epithet. We are guided by the facts as they are stated. There was no personalviolence, no insult; nothing which sometimes rightfully opens the door to punitive damages. Finding that property of the value of $1800 was, as she thought, endangered, she paid $90 to escape the danger. Obviously her assertion that she was damaged to the amount of $6000 was without legal foundation and only made with the purpose of securing a review in this court. Nothing in the facts justified any such assertion. Jurisdiction cannot be vested in this court by a mere claim of damages, unsupported by facts. We do not care to enter into any discussion of this question, but refer simply to Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, 115 U. S. 611, and cases cited in the opinion. The writ of error will be

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 U.S. 496, 21 S. Ct. 454, 45 L. Ed. 638, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magruder-v-armes-scotus-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack