Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

124 F.2d 430, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2520

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 1941

DocketNo. 9893

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 124 F.2d 430 (Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 124 F.2d 430, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2520 (5th Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brought this suit to recover damages totalling $750,000. It was dismissed by the District Court for want of jurisdiction. The undisputed facts are that Peyton was a writer and had prepared certain manuscript, which he tried to send by express to different people, in the hope of having a favorable review of it and thereby find a publisher. The package was never delivered to the persons to whom it was addressed and it may be assumed the express company is liable in damages but there may be some doubt about that owing to the imperfect addresses given to the express company.

Appellant appeared in person and argued his case in a very interesting manner. The suit is a common law action and not a suit arising under a law to regulate commerce, jurisdiction as to which is governed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(8). Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 223 U.S. 481, 32 S.Ct. 205, 56 L.Ed. 516. Unfortunately, the receipt for the shipment contains a provision limiting the damages to $50 in case of loss. A Federal District Court is without jurisdiction unless the suit involves an amount in controversy exceeding $3,000. In suits for damages the ad [431]*431damnum usually fixes the amount necessary to give jurisdiction. But that is where the damages are left to the discretion of the jury. Where the damages are fixed by contract of carriage at less than the jurisdictional amount, it is elementary that the 'court can not entertain jurisdiction simply because of allegations of large damages incidental to the breach of contract. Southeastern Express Co. v. Pastime Amusement Co., 299 U.S. 28, 57 S.Ct. 73, 81 L.Ed. 20.

The judgment of thé District Court was right. It is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brought this suit to recover damages totalling $750,000. It was dismissed by the District Court for want of jurisdiction. The undisputed facts are that Peyton was a writer and had prepared certain manuscript, which he tried to send by express to different people, in the hope of having a favorable review of it and thereby find a publisher. The package was never delivered to the persons to whom it was addressed and it may be assumed the express company is liable in damages but there may be some doubt about that owing to the imperfect addresses given to the express company.

Appellant appeared in person and argued his case in a very interesting manner. The suit is a common law action and not a suit arising under a law to regulate commerce, jurisdiction as to which is governed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(8). Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 223 U.S. 481, 32 S.Ct. 205, 56 L.Ed. 516. Unfortunately, the receipt for the shipment contains a provision limiting the damages to $50 in case of loss. A Federal District Court is without jurisdiction unless the suit involves an amount in controversy exceeding $3,000. In suits for damages the ad [431]*431damnum usually fixes the amount necessary to give jurisdiction. But that is where the damages are left to the discretion of the jury. Where the damages are fixed by contract of carriage at less than the jurisdictional amount, it is elementary that the 'court can not entertain jurisdiction simply because of allegations of large damages incidental to the breach of contract. Southeastern Express Co. v. Pastime Amusement Co., 299 U.S. 28, 57 S.Ct. 73, 81 L.Ed. 20.

The judgment of thé District Court was right. It is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F.2d 430, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peyton-v-railway-express-agency-inc-ca5-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack