The plaintiff below claimed more than $2,000 in his declaration,
but obtained a judgment for a less sum.
The jurisdiction of this Court depends on the sum or value in
dispute between the parties, as the case stands upon the writ of
error in this Court, not on that which was in dispute in the
circuit court.
If the writ of error be brought by the plaintiff below, then the
sum which the declaration shows to be due may be still recovered
should the judgment for a smaller sum be reversed, and consequently
the whole sum claimed is still in dispute.
But if the writ of error be brought by the defendant in the
original action, the judgment of this Court can only affirm that of
the circuit court, and consequently the matter in dispute cannot
exceed the amount of that judgment. Nothing but that judgment is in
dispute between the parties.
Mr. Ogden moved to dismiss the writ of error in this case on the
ground that the court had not jurisdiction of the cause, the sum in
controversy not amounting to $2,000, the amount for which a writ of
error is allowed. He stated, that the action was instituted for the
violation of a patent, and the amount of the recovery in damages
was $400 by the verdict of the jury. If, under the provision of the
patent law, the damages are to be trebled, it will not amount to a
sum authorizing the writ of error.
Although the damages laid in the declaration are $2,600, yet,
after verdict, as the writ of error is taken by the defendant
below, the only matter in dispute here is the amount of the
verdict, or at most, treble that sum, being $1,200. If the sum
stated in the declaration shall be allowed to ascertain the amount
in dispute, in every case of tort or of claims of uncertain
damages, the plaintiff who might insert any sum in his declaration
could secure the right to a writ of error to this Court.
Page 28 U. S. 34
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the
Court.
A motion has been made to dismiss his writ of error because the
court has no jurisdiction over it. The plaintiff below claimed more
than $2,000 in his declaration, but obtained a judgment for a less
sum. The defendant below has sued out a writ of error, and contends
now that the matter in dispute is not determined by the judgment,
but by the sum claimed in the declaration.
This Court has jurisdiction over final judgments and decrees of
the circuit court where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or
value of $2,000. The jurisdiction of the Court has been supposed to
depend on the sum or value of the matter in dispute in this Court,
not on that which was in dispute in the circuit court. If the writ
of error be brought by the plaintiff below, then the sum which his
declaration shows to be due may be still recovered should the
judgment for a smaller sum be reversed, and consequently the whole
sum claimed is still in dispute. But if the writ of error be
brought by the defendant in the original action, the judgment of
this Court can only affirm that of the circuit court, and
consequently the matter in dispute cannot exceed the amount of that
judgment. Nothing but that judgment is in dispute between the
parties. The counsel for the plaintiff in error relies on the case
of
Wilson v.
Daniel, 3 Dall. 401. That case, it is admitted, is
in point. It turns on the principle that the jurisdiction of this
Court depends on the sum which was in dispute before the judgment
was rendered in the circuit court. Although that case was decided
by a divided Court, and although we think that upon the true
construction of the twenty-second section of the Judicial Act, the
jurisdiction of the court depends upon the sum in dispute between
the parties as the case stands upon the writ of error, we should be
much inclined to adhere to the decision in
Wilson v.
Daniel, had not a contrary practice since prevailed. In
Cooke v.
Page 28 U. S. 35
Woodrow, 5 Cranch 13, this Court said "if the judgment
below be for the plaintiff, that judgment ascertains the value of
the matter in dispute." This however was said in a case in which
the defendant below was plaintiff in error, and in which the
judgment was a sufficient sum to give jurisdiction.
The case of
Wise & Lynn v.
Columbian Turnpike Company, 7 Cranch 276, was
dismissed because the sum for which judgment was rendered in the
circuit court was not sufficient to give jurisdiction, although the
claim before the commissioners of the road, which was the cause of
action and the matter in dispute in the circuit court, was
sufficient. The reporter adds that all the judges were present.
Since this decision, we do not recollect that the question has
been ever made. The silent practice of the court has conformed to
it. The reason of the limitation is that the expense of litigation
in this Court ought not to be incurred unless the matter in dispute
exceeds $2,000. This reason applies only to the matter in dispute
between the parties in this Court.
We are all of opinion that the writ of error be
Dismissed the Court having no jurisdiction of the
cause.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the district Court of the United States for the District of
East Louisiana, and was argued by counsel, on consideration whereof
and of the motion made by Mr. Ogden in this cause on a prior day of
this term, to-wit, on Thursday, 28 January of the present term of
this Court, to dismiss this writ of error for want of jurisdiction,
the amount in controversy not exceeding the sum of $2,000, it is
ordered and adjudged by this Court that the writ of error in this
cause be and the same is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction,
on the ground that the sum in controversy does not exceed the sum
of $2,000, and the same is dismissed accordingly.
