Judgment sustained as in accord with a stipulation to abide the
final result of
Chesbrough v. Woodworth, 244 U. S.
72. P.
252 U. S. 83.
In an action in tort, the amount involved is the damages claimed
if the declaration discloses nothing rendering such a recovery
impossible and no bad faith appears. P.
252 U. S.
84.
After a case of that character has been removed by defendant
from a state court and judgment rendered against him in the
district court and circuit court of appeals, it would require very
clear error to justify this Court in denying the jurisdiction upon
the ground that the requisite amount was not involved.
Id.
251 F. 881 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Memorandum opinion under direction of the Court, by MR. JUSTICE
McREYNOLDS.
Each of the three defendants in error instituted a suit against
plaintiff in error for damages suffered by reason of his action as
a director of the Old Second National Bank, Bay City, Michigan.
These were consolidated in the district court, and thereafter all
parties stipulated that, as the facts were approximately the same
as in
Woodworth v. Chesbrough et al. (No. 137), the
Page 252 U. S. 84
"causes shall in all respects and as to all parties therein be
governed and concluded by the final result in the said case,"
and
"that, if and when final judgment is entered upon the verdict
heretofore rendered in said case No. 137, or on any verdict that
may hereafter be rendered therein and when proceedings (if any) for
the review of said judgment have been concluded or abandoned so
that execution may be issued thereon, then judgment shall be
forthwith entered and execution issued in the above entitled
causes"
for specified amounts.
A judgment against Chesbrough in No. 137 having been affirmed
here (
244 U. S. 244 U.S.
72), the district court, purporting to enforce the stipulation,
entered judgments for defendants in error, and this action was
properly approved by the circuit court of appeals. 251 F. 881.
See 195 F. 875,; 221 F. 912.
Plain provisions of the stipulation were rightly applied. The
objection, based upon alleged insufficiency of the amount involved,
which plaintiff in error urges to the district court's jurisdiction
of the cause first instituted by Mrs. Smalley in the state court
and thereafter removed upon his petition, is without merit. The
action is in tort; alleged damages exceed the prescribed amount;
the declaration discloses nothing rendering such a recovery
impossible; no bad faith appears. At this stage of the cause, it
would require very clear error to justify a negation of the trial
court's jurisdiction.
Smithers v. Smith, 204 U.
S. 632,
204 U. S.
642-643.
The judgment of the court below is
Affirmed.
