RICHARD M. SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
v.
EZRA LUNT'S ADMINISTRATOR, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
Upon an inspection of the record, it appears that the plaintiff claims in his declaration the sum of twelve hundred and forty-one dollars as remaining due to him, and he has laid the ad damnum at one thousand dollars. Under such circumstances, a general verdict having been given against him, the matter in dispute is, in our opinion, the sum which he claims in the ad damnum. The court cannot judicially take notice, that by computation it may possibly be made oút as matter of inference from the declaration, that the plaintiff’s claim, in reality, must be less than one thousand dollars: much less can it take such notice in a case where tbe plaintiff might be allowed interest on his claim by the jury, so as to swell his claim beyond one thousand dollar’s. The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is overruled.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The United States ex relatione Richard R. Crawford v. Addison, 22 How. 174 (U.S. 1859)
-
De Krafft v. Barney, 2 Black 704 (U.S. 1862)
-
Olney v. The Steam-ship Falcon, 17 How. 19 (U.S. 1854)…diction under the act of Congress ; and the interest not being spe-' cially claimed, for the reason stated, cannot be computed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, for want of jurisdiction. Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 34; Scott v. Lunt’s Administrator, 6 Pet. 349. Order. This cause came on to be heard, on the transcript of the record, from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged, by…
Authorities Cited
- Cooke and Others v. Woodrow, 5 Cranch 13 (U.S. 1809)