From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jenness v. Citizens' National Bank of Rome

U.S.
Jan 7, 1884
110 U.S. 52 (1884)

Opinion

IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.

Submitted December 20th, 1883. Decided January 7th, 1884.

Appeal — Jurisdiction. When a judgment below is for an amount sufficient to give jurisdiction above, but it appears affirmatively on the record that after deducting from it an amount not in contest below, there remains less than the jurisdictional sum, this court has no jurisdiction.

Mr. W.B. Williams for the plaintiff in error.


The judgment in this case is for $7,275.16, but it appears affirmatively on the face of the record that of this amount $2,669.03 was not disputed below. The defence related alone to the difference between these two amounts, which is less than $5,000. The dispute here is only in reference to the amount contested below. Such being the case, we have no jurisdiction. The cases of Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U.S. 564; Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U.S. 6; and Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U.S. 165, are conclusive to this effect.

Dismissed.


Summaries of

Jenness v. Citizens' National Bank of Rome

U.S.
Jan 7, 1884
110 U.S. 52 (1884)
Case details for

Jenness v. Citizens' National Bank of Rome

Case Details

Full title:JENNESS v . CITIZENS' NATIONAL BANK OF ROME

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 7, 1884

Citations

110 U.S. 52 (1884)
3 S. Ct. 425

Citing Cases

Vandermost v. Withrow

The word "original" does not appear in our statute, but such we take to be the fair implication. The statutes…

Sadler v. Pennsylvania Refining Co.

It necessarily follows that I must dispose of the case upon this ground. Jenness v. Citizens' National Bank…