The value of the matter in dispute is to be determined by the
amount due at the time of the judgment of the court below, which is
brought here for review, including interest up to the time of the
judgment of the appellate court, if the appeal is from an appellate
court, and the judgment which is taken to the appellate court bears
interest.
Findings of fact in the court below are conclusive, and cannot
be reexamined here.
This was a motion to dismiss, with which was united a motion to
affirm. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
Page 123 U. S. 618
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
A judgment was rendered September 28, 1885, by the District
Court of Arizona in and for the County of Pima, against L.
Zeckendorf & Co., the appellants, and in favor of Johnson, the
appellee, for $4,304.93,
"with interest on $2,800 of said sum at the rate of two percent
per month from the date hereof until paid, and interest on
$1,504.33 at the rate of ten percent per annum from the date hereof
until paid."
This judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory
on appeal, November 8, 1886. From that judgment of affirmance this
appeal was taken, which the appellee moves to dismiss on the ground
that the value of the matter in dispute does not exceed $5,000, as
now required by law. Act March 3, 1885, c. 355, 23 Stat. 443.
The value of the matter in dispute is to be determined by the
amount due at the time of the judgment brought here for review,
to-wit, the judgment of the supreme court of the territory, and not
at the time of the judgment of the district court. Adding the
interest to the judgment of the district court until the date of
that of the supreme court, as we must for the purpose of
determining our jurisdiction,
The Patapsco,
12 Wall. 451;
N.Y. Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National
Bank, 118 U. S. 608, we
find that the amount due at the time of the judgment of the supreme
court was considerably more than $5,000. The motion to dismiss is
therefore denied.
But on looking into the record, we discover that the errors
assigned relate only to the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the findings. These we cannot consider. The findings of fact by the
court below are conclusive, and cannot be reexamined here.
The
Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440, and
cases there cited. Upon the facts as found, there can be no doubt
of the correctness of the judgment. It is apparent if the case is
kept here longer it will be for delay only. For that reason the
motion to affirm is granted.
Affirmed.