Tintsman v. National Bank

Supreme Court

Tintsman v. National Bank

100 U.S. 6, 25 L. Ed. 530, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1793

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 18, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 100 U.S. 6 (Tintsman v. 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

Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U.S. 6, 25 L. Ed. 530, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1793 (1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

In Gray v. Blanchard (97 U. S. 564), we held that a case must be dismissed, if, on an examination of the whole record,' it appeared that the value of the matter actually in dispute between the parties was less than our jurisdictional amount. This writ of error was brought by the defendant below to reverse a judgment against him of more than $5,000; but on looking into the record we find that the ca¡se was heard on an agreed statement of facts in the nature of a special verdict, in which it appeared that the plaintiff claimed of the defendant $8,238.79, and interest from June 4, 1876. The defendant admitted that he owed of this amount $5,099.59, for which the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment. The only controversy was as to the liability of the defendant for the difference between - what he admitted to. be due and what the plaintiff claimed, or $3,134.20. This, then, is the amount actually in dispute,'and as it is less than $5,000, we have no jurisdiction.

Writ dismissed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

In Gray v. Blanchard (97 U. S. 564), we held that a case must be dismissed, if, on an examination of the whole record,' it appeared that the value of the matter actually in dispute between the parties was less than our jurisdictional amount. This writ of error was brought by the defendant below to reverse a judgment against him of more than $5,000; but on looking into the record we find that the ca¡se was heard on an agreed statement of facts in the nature of a special verdict, in which it appeared that the plaintiff claimed of the defendant $8,238.79, and interest from June 4, 1876. The defendant admitted that he owed of this amount $5,099.59, for which the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment. The only controversy was as to the liability of the defendant for the difference between - what he admitted to. be due and what the plaintiff claimed, or $3,134.20. This, then, is the amount actually in dispute,'and as it is less than $5,000, we have no jurisdiction.

Writ dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 U.S. 6, 25 L. Ed. 530, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tintsman-v-national-bank-scotus-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack