Ryan v. Bindley
| Decision Date | 01 December 1863 |
| Citation | 68 U.S. 66,1 Wall. 66,17 L.Ed. 559 |
| Parties | RYAN v. BINDLEY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THE Judiciary Act provides1 that final judgments and decrees in civil actions and suits in equity in a Circuit Court, when the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of two thousand dollars, exclusive of costs, may by re-examined and reversed or approved in the Supreme Court. With this law in force, Bindley had sued Ryan in assumpsit in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and laid his damages at one thousand dollars. Ryan, however, put in a plea, insisting that Ryan owed him four thousand dollars, which sum he claimed a right to set off against Bindley's demand, and to have judgment against Bindley for the excess: a sort of defence and judgment allowed by the laws of Ohio and the practice of the Circuit Court of the United States for its districts, which herein by rule of court had adopted the practice of the State tribunals. The verdict found $575.85 for the plaintiff.
In the course of the trial the defendant offered himself as a witness; not being competent of course by the general laws of evidence which prevail in the Federal courts, and indeed being, by rule of the Circuit Court where the case was tried, made, as a party, specifically incompetent, but claiming to be competent by virtue of the Ohio code of civil procedure; one section of which2 declares that 'No person shall be disqualified as a witness in any civil action or proceeding by reason of his interest in the event of the same, as a party or otherwise.'
The Circuit Court, holding to its own rule, rejected the witness; and on error here two questions were raised.
1. Did the sum involved exceed $2000 in such a sense as that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction?
2. Was the defendant in this suit rightly rejected as a witness?
Messrs. Lee and Fisher for the plaintiff in error.
1. The allegation in the declaration must be taken, generally, as fixing the amount or value for the purposes of jurisdiction. But the subsequent pleadings may so change the original character of the suit as to involve an amount or value in excess of two thousand dollars, and when this is done, the judgments and decrees of the court below are subject to be reviewed here.
In this case Ryan interposed a notice of set-off, and insisted that Bindley owed him four thousand dollars, for goods sold and money lent, which he claimed the right to set off against Bindley's demand, and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. United States
...Hundley, 6 How. 1, 12 L.Ed. 319; Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black 427, 17 L.Ed. 168; Wright v. Bales, 2 Black 535, 17 L.Ed. 264; Ryan v. Bindley, 1 Wall. 66, 17 L.Ed. 559; Claiborne County v. Brooks, 111 U.S. 400, 4 S.Ct. 489, 28 L.Ed. 470; Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Union Trust Co., 112 U......
-
Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Kendall
... ... Vance v. Campbell, 1 ... Black, 427, 17 L.Ed. 168, Wright v. Bales, 2 ... Black, 535, 17 L.Ed. 264, and Ryan v. Bindley, 1 ... Wall. 66, 17 L.Ed. 559, are based on section 310 of the ... Code of Civil Procedure of Ohio (Rev. St. 1880), permitting a ... ...
-
Horton v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.
... ... such law. Re Fisk, 113 ... [85 S.E. 221] ... U. S. 713, 5 S.Ct. 724, 28 L.Ed. 1117. The same is the rule ... as to evidence ( Ryan v. Bindley, 1 Wall. 66, 17 ... L.Ed. 559), as to a discontinuance ( Coffee v ... Planters' Bank, 13 How. 183, 14 L.Ed. 105), as to ... what is ... ...
-
American Issue Pub. Co. v. Sloan
...where in conflict with the federal Constitution, statutes, or treaties. McNiel v. Holbrook, 12 Pet. 84, 89, 9 L.Ed. 1009; Ryan v. Bindley, 1 Wall. 66, 68, 17 L.Ed. 559; Connecticut Life Ins. Co. v. Union Trust Co., U.S. 250, 252, 5 Sup.Ct. 119, 28 L.Ed. 708; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U.S. 713, 720......