Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/469/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/469/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Smith T. v. Honey, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 469 469 (1830)
Smith T. v. Honey
28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 469
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT
COURT OF MISSOURI
Syllabus
Where the verdict for the plaintiff in the circuit court is for a less amount than $2,000 and the defendant prosecutes a writ of error, this Court has not jurisdiction although the demand of the plaintiff in the suit exceeded two thousand dollars.
In the District Court of Missouri, John W. Honey instituted an action of trespass on the case for the recovery of damages from John Smith T., the defendant in the action, for the use of a "new and useful improvement in screening tables for discriminating, selecting, and separating perfect from imperfect shot," for which letters patent had been granted to the plaintiff by the United States. The damages were laid in the declaration at $2,000, and at September term, 1827, the cause was tried, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff for $100, upon which judgment was entered for the plaintiff below.
On the trial, the counsel for the defendant filed several bills of exceptions to the opinion of the court and prosecuted this writ of error.
After the case was opened for the plaintiff in error, the court ordered the writ of error to be dismissed, the same having been sued out by the defendant in the district court and the sum in controversy, as to him, being no more than $100, the amount of the verdict in that court. See the case of Gordon v. Ogden at this term, ante 28 U. S. 33.
The Court overruled the motion.
