Wabash, St Ry Co v. Knox
| Decision Date | 28 January 1884 |
| Parties | WABASH, ST. L. & P. RY. CO. v. KNOX |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Vespasian Warner, for motion.
H. S. Greene, Wm. Brown, and Edw. P. Kisby, in opposition.
The judgment in this case was for $5,237.15, but the record shows in many ways that of this amount $727.42 was admitted to be due. A formal tender of that sum was made on the twenty-sixth of February, 1883, and the money deposited in court for Knox, the plaintiff, where it remained until the fourteenth of March, nine days after the judgment was rendered, when it was withdrawn by the railroad company, without prejudice, on the order of the court, and with the consent and agreement of Knox. The bill of exceptions also shows an admitted liability of the company for the amount of the tender. The case is, therefore, in all material respects, like that of Tintsman v. Nat. Bank, 100 U. S. 6, where the writ was dismissed, althought the judg- ment was for $8,233.59, because, by an agreed statement of facts in the record, it appeared that the defendant admitted he owed $5,009.59 of the amount recovered. To the same effect is Jennes v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Romeo, ante, 425. The amount in dispute here is no more than was in dispute below, and that was less than $5,000.
The motion to dismiss is granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v. Shufeldt
...Zinc Co. v. Trotter, 108 U. S. 564, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 875; Opelika v. Daniel, 109 U.S. 108, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 70; Wabash, etc., R. R. v. Knox, 110 U. S. 304, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; Bradstreet Co. v. Higgins, 112 U. S. 227, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 117; Bruce v. Manchester & K. R. R., 117 U. S. 514, 6 Sup.......
-
Municipality of Rio Piedras v. Serra, Garabis & Co.
...less than the jurisdictional sum, the court was without jurisdiction. See to the same effect Wabash, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Knox, 110 U. S. 304, 3 S. Ct. 638, 28 L. Ed. 155. This court, therefore, is without jurisdiction on the ground of the amount in controversy, although it would undo......
-
New England Mortgage Security Co v. Gay
...amount in dispute in this court. Tinstman v. Bank, 100 U. S. 6; Jenness v. Bank, 110 U. S. 52, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 425; Railway Co. v. Knox, 110 U. S. 304, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 424. It is ture that, under Code Ga. § 2057, subd. f, 'all titles ......
-
Gorman v. Havird
...S. 6; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 424; Jenness v. Bank, 110 U. S. 52, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 425; Rail way Co. v. Knox, 110 U. S. 304, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638. Gauged by the rule laid down in these cases, it is clear that we have no jurisdiction, and the motion to dismiss will ......