31 U.S. 349 (1832), Scott v. Lunt's Adm'r
|Citation:||31 U.S. 349, 8 L.Ed. 423|
|Party Name:||RICHARD M. SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR v. EZRA LUNT'S ADMINISTRATOR, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.|
|Case Date:||January 30, 1832|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
ERROR to the circuit court of the United States for the county of Alexandria.
The plaintiff in error brought an action of covenant on a deed for certain premises in the city of Alexandria, by which the same were granted to Ezra Lunt, the defendant's intestate, reserving a yearly rent charge of seventy-three dollars. The declaration stated that the plaintiff became entitled to demand and have of the said Ezra, in his lifetime, and of the defendant after his death, the said annual rent of seventy-three dollars; 'and the said plaintiff, in fact saith, that after the death of the said Eara there became due and owing to him, from the defendant, as administrator aforesaid, for the rents aforesaid, from the 8th day of August 1812 to the 8th day of August 1824, the sum of twelve hundred and forty-one dollars, which said sum of twelve hundred and forty-one dollars the said defendant, since the death of the said Ezra Lunt, has altogether failed to pay to the said plaintiff; and so the said plaintiff saith, that the said defendant, as administrator aforesaid, hath broken the covenant aforesaid, whereby the said plaintiff hath been injured, and hath sustained damage to the value of one thousand dollars, and thereof he brings suit.'
The defendants pleaded a re-entry on the premises for non-payment of the rent, by virtue of the condition of re-entry contained in the deed before the day specified in the declaration for the payment of the same; and that the plaintiff held and occupied the premises vested in him by the re-entry. Upon this plea issue was joined, and a verdict and judgment were rendered in favour of the defendant.
Bills of exceptions to the ruling of the court on matters of law were tendered by the plaintiff, and this writ of error was prosecuted by him.
Mr Jones, for the defendant, moved to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. The declaration shows that the plaintiff's claim does not amount to the sum of one thousand dollars. The action is for a rent charge of seventy-three dollars per annum, which is alleged to be due from the 8th day of August 1812 to the 8th day of August 1824, a period of twelve years; and therefore amounting to no more than the sum of nine hundred and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP