Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

New York Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National Bank

N.Y. Elevated R.R. v. Fifth Nat’l Bank, 118 U.S. 608 (1886)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1886-11-08
Topic
general

Mr. Chief Justice Waite - delivered the opinion of the court. The rule is settled that, when a writ of error is sued out from this court by the defendant below, and no question is presented growing out of a partial defence to the action, or a counter-claim or a set-off, the value of the matter in dispute is fixed by the amount of the judgment. Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 33; Hilton v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed New York Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National Bank. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
13 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Appellate Jurisdiction When a defendant below sues out a writ of error and no question arises from a partial defense, counterclaim, or set-off, the amount in controversy for purposes of appellate jurisdiction is fixed by the amount of the judgment.
  2. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Final Judgment Requirement Appellate jurisdiction cannot be invoked until a final judgment has been rendered; until then, the cause remains within the full judicial control of the court in which it is pending.
  3. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Amount in Controversy The jurisdictional amount is determined by the amount of the judgment exclusive of interest thereon, but interest that accrues before judgment, as distinguished from interest accruing after judgment, is included in computing the amount.
  4. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Appellate Jurisdiction Once appellate jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be defeated by a waiver or release of the amount in excess of the jurisdictional threshold.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

- delivered the opinion of the court.

The rule is settled that, when a writ of error is sued out from this court by the defendant below, and no question is presented growing out of a partial defence to the action, or a counter-claim or a set-off, the value of the matter in dispute is fixed by the amount of the judgment. Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 33; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165; Henderson v. Wadsworth, 115 U. S. 264, 276. Our jurisdiction cannot be invoked *610 •until after a final judgment, and, until such a judgment has been rendered, the cause remains in the full judicial control of the court in which it is pending. It was because of this that we declined to take jurisdiction in Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, where the verdict was for more than $5000, but was reduced to that amount, by leave of the court, before the judgment, which was for the reduced sum. It is true that our jurisdiction depends on the amount of the judgment, exclusive of interest thereon, Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rogers, 93 U. S. 565, 566; but here the interest accrued before judgment, and not after. In The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451, jurisdiction was taken in a case where the decree was for $1982, “ and interest from the date of the report,” which made more than $2000 due at the time of the decree, that being then the jurisdictional limit.

As the jurisdiction has once attached it cannot be defeated by a waiver, or release of the amount in excess of $5000.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Mr. Justice Field took no part in this decision.