New York Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National Bank

118 U.S. 608, 7 S. Ct. 23, 30 L. Ed. 259, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1952
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 8, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 118 U.S. 608 (New York Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National Bank) 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
New York Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National Bank, 118 U.S. 608, 7 S. Ct. 23, 30 L. Ed. 259, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1952 (1886).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

- delivered the opinion of the court.

The rule is settled that, when a writ of error is sued out from this court by the defendant below, and no question is presented growing out of a partial defence to the action, or a counter-claim or a set-off, the value of the matter in dispute is fixed by the amount of the judgment. Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 33; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165; Henderson v. Wadsworth, 115 U. S. 264, 276. Our jurisdiction cannot be invoked *610 •until after a final judgment, and, until such a judgment has been rendered, the cause remains in the full judicial control of the court in which it is pending. It was because of this that we declined to take jurisdiction in Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, where the verdict was for more than $5000, but was reduced to that amount, by leave of the court, before the judgment, which was for the reduced sum. It is true that our jurisdiction depends on the amount of the judgment, exclusive of interest thereon, Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rogers, 93 U. S. 565, 566; but here the interest accrued before judgment, and not after. In The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451, jurisdiction was taken in a case where the decree was for $1982, “ and interest from the date of the report,” which made more than $2000 due at the time of the decree, that being then the jurisdictional limit.

As the jurisdiction has once attached it cannot be defeated by a waiver, or release of the amount in excess of $5000.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Mr. Justice Field took no part in this decision.

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

Related

United States v. John Jay Beattie
613 F.2d 762 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
Tope v. Nichols
232 P. 590 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1925)
Oliver v. Love
78 S.W. 335 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Hale v. Grogan
50 S.W. 257 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1899)
Decker v. Williams
73 F. 308 (D. Alaska, 1896)
Massachusetts Benefit Assn. v. Miles
137 U.S. 689 (Supreme Court, 1891)
Griffith v. Baltimore & O. R.
44 F. 574 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio, 1890)
Keller v. Ashford
133 U.S. 610 (Supreme Court, 1890)
Quebec Steamship Co. v. Merchant
133 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 1890)
District of Columbia v. Gannon
130 U.S. 227 (Supreme Court, 1889)
Robostelli v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
34 F. 719 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1888)
Zeckendorf v. Johnson
123 U.S. 617 (Supreme Court, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 U.S. 608, 7 S. Ct. 23, 30 L. Ed. 259, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-elevated-railroad-v-fifth-national-bank-scotus-1886.