Brown v. Webster

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WHITE
• Citation: Brown v. Webster, 156 U.S. 328, 15 S.Ct. 377, 39 L.Ed. 440 (1895)
• Decision Date: 04 March 1895
• Docket Number: No. 160,160
• Parties: BROWN v. WEBSTER

156 U.S. 328

15 S.Ct. 377

39 L.Ed. 440

BROWN

v WEBSTER.

No. 160.

March 4, 1895.

J. H. Blair, for plaintiff in error.

Frank W. Hackett, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice WHITE, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The only error complained of here is the absolute want of jurisdiction in the court below, which it is asserted is apparent on the face of the record. The argument is that the matter in dispute did not exceed $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and hence the alleged want of jurisdiction. The demand of the plaintiff was for damages in the sum of $6,000. This was the principal controversy. It is insisted, however, that as, under the law of Nebraska, damages in case of eviction involved responsibility only for the return of the price, with interest thereon, and the price here was only $1,200, the sum in controversy could not exceed $2,000, exclusive of interest; that is to say, as the measure of the damage was price and interest, the price being below $2,000, the jurisdictional amount could not be arrived at by adding the interest to the price. This contention overlooks the elementary distinction between interest as such and the use of an interest calculation as an instrumentality in arriving at the amount of damages to be awarded on the principal demand. As we have said the recovery...