Railroad Company v. Trook
100 U.S. 112 (1879)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Railroad Company v. Trook, 100 U.S. 112 (1879)

Railroad Company v. Trook

100 U.S. 112

MOTION TO DISMISS A WRIT OF ERROR TO THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Syllabus

Where a judgment for the recovery of money, affirmed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, is brought here for reexamination, the amount thereof, without adding interest or costs, determines the value of "the matter in dispute," under the Act of Feb. 25, 1579, 20 Stat. 320, and, if it does not exceed $2,500, this Court has no jurisdiction.

Trook, in an action in the court below against the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company, recovered judgment, Feb. 19, 1877, for $4,000 and costs of suit. A motion for a new trial was then made on exceptions taken during the progress of the cause, and on account of excessive damages. Trook entered a remittitur of $1,500, and the judgment was ultimately affirmed at a hearing in general term. The company then removed the case here by writ of error, which Trook moves to dismiss, on the ground that this Court, under the Act of Feb. 25, 1879, 20 Stat. 320, has no jurisdiction, as the "matter in dispute exclusive of costs" does not exceed "the value of $2,500."

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

In cases brought here by writ of error for the reexamination of judgments of affirmance in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, the value of the matter in dispute is determined by the judgment affirmed without adding interest

Page 100 U. S. 113

or costs. The judgment in this case, after the $1,500 had been remitted to avoid a new trial, did not exceed $2,500. Such being the case, under the rule established in Railroad Company v. Grant,98 U. S. 398, our jurisdiction has been taken away.

The motion to dismiss will be granted, each party to pay his own costs; and it is

So ordered.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.