Scott v. Ezra Lunt's Administrator

Supreme Court

Scott v. Ezra Lunt's Administrator

31 U.S. 349, 8 L. Ed. 423, 6 Pet. 349, 1832 U.S. LEXIS 480

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 30, 1832

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 31 U.S. 349 (Scott v. Ezra Lunt's Administrator) 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

Scott v. Ezra Lunt's Administrator, 31 U.S. 349, 8 L. Ed. 423, 6 Pet. 349, 1832 U.S. LEXIS 480 (1832).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Upon an inspection of the record, it appears that the plaintiff claims in his declaration the sum of twelve hundred and forty-one dollars as remaining due to him, and he has laid the ad damnum at one thousand dollars. Under such circumstances, a general verdict having been given against him, the matter in dispute is, in our opinion, the sum which he claims in the ad damnum. The court cannot judicially take notice, that by computation it may possibly be made oút as matter of inference from the declaration, that the plaintiff’s claim, in reality, must be less than one thousand dollars: much less can it take such notice in a case where tbe plaintiff might be allowed interest on his claim by the jury, so as to swell his claim beyond one thousand dollar’s. The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is overruled.

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

Mr Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Upon an inspection of the record, it appears that the plaintiff claims in his declaration the sum of twelve hundred and forty-one dollars as remaining due to him, and he has laid the ad damnum at one thousand dollars. Under such circumstances, a general verdict having been given against him, the matter in dispute is, in our opinion, the sum which he claims in the ad damnum. The court cannot judicially take notice, that by computation it may possibly be made oút as matter of inference from the declaration, that the plaintiff’s claim, in reality, must be less than one thousand dollars: much less can it take such notice in a case where tbe plaintiff might be allowed interest on his claim by the jury, so as to swell his claim beyond one thousand dollar’s. The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 U.S. 349, 8 L. Ed. 423, 6 Pet. 349, 1832 U.S. LEXIS 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-ezra-lunts-administrator-scotus-1832.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack