Lee Et Al v. Watson
| Decision Date | 01 December 1863 |
| Citation | 1 Wall. 337,68 U.S. 337,17 L.Ed. 557 |
| Parties | LEE ET AL. v. WATSON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
LEE and Leavit brought assumpsit in the Circuit Court for the Kentucky District, against Watson, declaring on a promissory note for $610, with a count for $1000 money due for goods sold; $1000 money had and received; $1000 money due on account stated, &c. What damages exactly were claimed in the narr. as originally filed, did not clearly appear, but they were obviously less than $2000. Demurrer was put in to one part of the declaration and non assumpsit pleaded to the residue, and the court having sustained the demurrer, the record proceeded thus:
'On motion of the plaintiffs, and by consent of the defendants, leave is given plaintiffs to amend their declaration by striking out the amount of damages claimed in this cause, and insert $2100, which is done accordingly, and the declaration so amended.'
A jury having been summoned to try the issue raised by the plea of non assumpsit to the money counts, a verdict was found by them for the defendants; whereupon the plaintiff having taken a bill of exceptions on the trial, applied for and obtained a writ of error to this court, under that section of the Judiciary Act which provides that final judgments in a Circuit Court, when the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of $2000, may be re-examined here;* the judge, however, who had heard the case and who allowed the writ, making this indorsement upon it:
The question in this court now was whether the writ could be sustained; a matter which was argued by Messrs. Lee and Fisher for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Fendall contra.
It appears from the certificate of the presiding judge of the court below, indorsed on the writ of error, that the writ and original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co
...3 Cir., 55 F.2d 658. 24 The same principle applies in cases where a fixed amount is requisite to jurisdiction on appeal. Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337, 17 L.Ed. 557; Cook v. United States, 2 Wall. 218, 17 L.Ed. 755. 25 Woods v. Massachusetts Protective Ass'n, D.C., 34 F.2d 501. And an amendmen......
-
George v. Lewis, Civ. A. No. 7338.
...116 U.S. 550, 560, 6 S.Ct. 501, 29 L.Ed. 729; Schacker v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 93 U.S. 241, 242, 23 L.Ed. 862; Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337, 339, 17 L.Ed. 557; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 8 Cir., 255 F. 958, 959; Hampton Stove Co. v. Gardner, 8 Cir., 154 F. 805, 806. Therefore, whil......
-
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Pacific Coast Lumber Mfrs.' Ass'n
... ... 682, it ... was held that a suit cannot properly be dismissed by a ... Circuit Court as not involving a controversy of an amount ... sufficient to come within its jurisdiction unless the facts ... appear upon the record to create a legal certainty of that ... conclusion. In Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 339, 17 L.Ed ... 557, it was said: ... 'By ... 'matter in dispute' is meant the subject of the ... litigation-- the matter for which the suit is brought and ... upon which issue is joined, and in relation to which jurors ... are called and witnesses examined.' ... ...
-
Lilienthal v. McCormick
... ... the jurisdiction of the circuit courts in suits for the ... recovery of money only, is the amount demanded by the ... plaintiff in good faith. ' Gordon v. Longest, 16 ... Pet. 97, 104, 10 L.Ed. 900. 4 Rose's Notes on U.S. Rep ... 147, and authorities there cited; Lee v. Watson, 1 ... Wall. 337, 339, 17 L.Ed. 557; Hilton v ... Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165, 174, 2 Sup.Ct. 424, 27 L.Ed ... 688; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U.S. 550, 561, 6 Sup.Ct ... 501, 29 L.Ed. 729. The record shows that the amount sued for ... was claimed by complainants in good faith. The court having ... ...