The verdict and judgment in the court below having been for
$5,000, and that judgment having been a few days later amended on
the motion -- apparently ex parte
-- of the defendant by
adding to it the sum of $116.73, interest, this Court, as the
defendant made the motion with the sole object of obtaining a writ
of error not otherwise allowable, declines to permit what was done
to be efficacious in the accomplishment of the purpose designed,
and dismisses the writ of error.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Page 152 U. S. 672
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This was an action to recover damages for the
death of Fred. D. Booth, alleged to have been occasioned by the
wrongful act or omission of the defendant, brought under the
statute of the State of Minnesota in that behalf, which limited the
recovery to not exceeding $5,000. The case, being tried to a jury,
resulted in a verdict in plaintiff's favor, January 10, 1890, for
$5,000, and, after motions for a new trial and in arrest had been
overruled, judgment was rendered for that amount on May 12, 1890.
On the following 19th of May, the circuit court, on motion of the
defendant's counsel, apparently made ex parte,
judgment to be amended so as to read that the plaintiff recover the
sum of $5,000,
"the amount found to be due by the jury, together with the sum
of one hundred and sixteen and 73-100 dollars ($116.73), the amount
of interest thereon from the rendition of the verdict to date."
These proceedings were had at December term, 1889. On July 3,
1890, one of the days of the succeeding June term, plaintiff moved
the court to vacate the amendatory order of May 19, which motion
was overruled. Defendant thereafter sued out this writ of error.
But the writ cannot be maintained unless it appear that the matter
in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,
and in this case the judgment would be the measure of the
jurisdiction. As originally rendered, this did not exceed that sum,
and we are of opinion that it could not be amended on motion of the
defendant by the addition of an amount not claimed by plaintiff, so
as to bring the case within our jurisdiction. Since the defendant
confessedly made its motion with the sole object of obtaining a
writ of error not otherwise allowable, and in doing so conceded
that the amount sought to be added was not in dispute, we decline
to permit what was done to be efficacious in the accomplishment of
the purpose designed.
Writ of error dismissed.