District of Columbia v. Gannon
| Decision Date | 01 April 1889 |
| Citation | 32 L.Ed. 922,130 U.S. 227,9 S.Ct. 508 |
| Parties | DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. GANNON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A. G. Riddle and H. E. Davis, for plaintiff in error.
S. S. Henkle and John F. Ennis, for defendant in error.
The defendant in error recovered judgment in the supreme court of the District of Columbia against the District for $5,000, in an action on the case for personal injuries, on the 17th day of January, 1885, which judgment was affirmed in general term on the 28th of May succeeding, and the cause brought here on writ of error. Under the act of congress of March 3, 1885, (23 St. 443,) no appeal or writ of error can be allowed from any judgment or decree in any suit at law or in equity in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, unless the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum of $5,000, or unless the validity of a patent or copyright is involved in the suit, or the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, is drawn in question therein. The judgment in the case at bar, as rendered at special term, was for $5,000 and costs, and this was affirmed, with costs, but not with interest; the general term thereby simply declaring that it was satisfied to let the former judgment stand. In all particulars material to the inquiry as to the value of the matter in dispute, the record is the same as in Railroad Co. v. Trook, 100 U. S. 112, where this court, speaking by Mr. Chief Justice WAITE, said: 'In cases brought here by writ of error for the re-examination of judgments of affirmance in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, the value of the matter in dispute is determined by the judgment affirmed, without adding interest or costs.' The general rule has been repeatedly so laid down. Telegraph Co. v. Rogers, 93 U. S. 565; Walker v. U. S., 4 Wall. 163, 165; Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73; Railroad Co. v. Bank, 118 U. S. 608, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 23.
Where interest, instead of accompanying the judgment or decree as damages for the detention of a specific amount adjudged or decreed, is part of the claim litigated, and the judgment or decree is so framed as to provide for it to run from a period antecedent to the rendition of such judgment or decree, or, in actions ex contractu, according to the terms of the contract upon which the action is based, jurisdiction may attach. Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S. 617, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451; The Rio Grande, 19 Wall. 178....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Milling Co v. Bondurant
...30 L. Ed. 207, Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210, 9 Sup. Ct. 503, 32 L. Ed. 908, District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 227, 229, 9 Sup. Ct. 508, 32 L. Ed. 922, United States v. Lynch, 137 U. S. 280, 11 Sup. Ct. 114, 34 L. Ed. 700, Ferry v. King Co., 141 U. S. 668, 12 ......
-
John King Mfg Co v. City Council of August, 392
...citing and following Baltimore & Potomac R. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210, 9 S. Ct. 503, 32 L. Ed. 908; District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 227, 9 S. Ct. 508, 32 L. Ed. 922, and United States v. Lynch, 137 U. S. 280, 285, 11 S. Ct. 114, 34 L. Ed. 700; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. C......
-
Keller v. Ashford
...decree from which this appeal was taken. In Railroad Co. v. Trook, 100 U. S. 112, cited for the appellee, as in District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 227, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 508, the judgment in special term was for damages in an action sounding in tort, which bore no interest, either by t......
-
United States State of South Carolina v. Seymour
...right to enjoy whatever privileges are granted by it.' Clough v. Curtis, 134 U. S. 361, 370, 10 Sup. Ct. 573. In District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 227, 9 Sup. Ct. 508, it was held that the validity of the authority of the commissioners of the District was not drawn in question by co......