Scott v. Ezra Lunt's Administrator

31 U.S. 349, 8 L. Ed. 423, 6 Pet. 349, 1832 U.S. LEXIS 480
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 30, 1832·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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

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

31 U.S. 349 (Scott v. Ezra Lunt's Administrator) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. McCoy
387 P.2d 942 (Washington Supreme Court, 1963)
Interstate Building & Loan Ass'n v. Edgefield Hotel Co.
109 F. 692 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina, 1901)
Blumenthal v. Lloyd
18 Misc. 195 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
De Krafft v. Barney
67 U.S. 704 (Supreme Court, 1863)
Olney v. the Steam-Ship Falcon
58 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court, 1855)
Van Hook v. Whitlock
26 Wend. 43 (New York Supreme Court, 1841)