« ZurückWeiter »
a right of appeal, but not in the appellate court. When the jurisdiction of a court is limited in amount, the limitation applies to the court when sitting in equity.3
(6) Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction.—The Supreme Court of the United States has appellate jurisdiction in civil matters only when “the matter in dispute" exceeds a certain sum. The
bring the case within the jurisdiction circuit court to the Supreme Court of of the court. Converse v. Damaris- the United States “when the subject in cotta Bank, 15 Me. 431; Hart v. Waitt, dispute shall be of the value of $2,000 3 Allen (85 Mass.) 532.
or more." By § 699 of the Revised 1. The ad damnum clause has been Statutes it is provided that these limiincreased in the trial court, so as to give tations do not apply to cases touching a right of appeal. Danielson v. An- patent rights or copy rights, to civil acdrews, 1 Pick. (18 Mass.) 156; Taylor tions to enforce the revenue laws, to v. Jones, 42 N. H. 25.
civil actions against revenue officers for 2. The sum claimed cannot be amend- acts done in their official capacity, to ed in the appellate court so as to give cases brought on account of the dethe court below jurisdiction. Ladd v. privation of rights, privileges or immuKimball,12 Gray (Mass.) 139; McQuadenities secured by the constitution, and v. O'Neil, 15 Gray (Mass.) 52. See to actions brought for injuries caused Fowler v. Bishop, 32 Conn. 199. by acts done in furtherance of any con
The ad damnum clause determines spiracy mentioned in 1980, title Civil right of appeal or writ of error. Not Rights. These limitations do not apply an erroneous judgment in excess there- to cases arising under the “act to proof. Hemmenway et al. v. Hickes et tect all citizens in their civil and legal al., 4 Pick. (21 Mass.) 497. Nor the rights," passed March ist, 1875, nor to demand
in the pleadings. certain habeas corpus cases under the Chamberlain v. Cochran, 8 Pick. (25 act of March 3rd, 1885, ch. 353; 23 U.
S. Stat. at Large, 437, amendatory of 3. When the jurisdiction of a court is 98 763, 764 of the Revised Statutes. limited in amount, the limitation ap- And it has been very recently proplies to the court when sitting in equity vided by the act of congress of Februas well as when acting as a common ary 25th, 1889, ch. 236, Š 1, "that, in all law court. Gamber v. Holben, 5 Mich. cases where a final judgment or decree 331.
shall be rendered in a circuit court of It has, however, been held in Ala- the United States, in which there shall bama that a bill in equity is not demur. have been a question involving the juris. rable because it fails to show affirma- diction of the court, the party against tively that the amount in controversy whom the judgment or decree is rendered is within the jurisdiction of the court. shall be entitled to an appeal or writ of If it is not, the objection must be raised error to the Supreme Court of the United by plea or answer. Abraham v. Hall, States to review such judgment or de59 Ala. 386.
cree without reference to the amount of 4. Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction.- the same, but in cases where the decree The Supreme Court of the United or judgment does not exceed the sum States may review the judgments and of $5,000, the supreme court shall not decrees of the United States circuit review any question raised upon the courts only when "the matter in dispute record except such question of jurisdicshall exceed the sum or value of" $2,000, tion." under the judiciary act of 1789, U. S. In like manner, plaintiffs in United Stat. at Large, vol. 1, p. 13; of $5,000, States court of claims may appeal to under the act of February 16th, 1875, the United States supreme court in U. S. Stat. at Large, vol. 18, p. 315.
cases where "the amount in controSee United States v. Davis, 131 V. Š. versy exceeds $3,000,” while an appeal 36. By the recent act of congress of in behalf of the United States may be March 2nd, 1889, ch. 382, 5, it is pro- taken from said court irrespective of the vided that in proceedings against com- amount involved. Rev. Stat. U. S., S mon carriers to enforce obedience to or- 707. ders, etc., of the interstate commerce The limitation in cases of appeals commission an appeal will lie from the from or writs of error to the supreme
“matter in dispute" must have a pecuniary value. The value must appear in the record or be proved. The amount claimed in the court below is conclusive ;3 it cannot be increased in the
court of the District of Columbia was compelling such report on the ground $2,500 under the act of February 25th, that it would unlawfully expose the af1879, U. S. Stat. at Large, vol. 20, p. fairs of the bank, etc., has been dis321, but is now $5,000, under the act of missed by the circuit court. There is no March 3rd, 1885, U. S. Stat. at Large, property in dispute such as would give vol. 23, p. 443. Except in cases involv. the supreme court jurisdiction to entering the validity of “any patent or copy tain an appeal. Youngstown Bank v. right" or the validity of “a treaty or Hughes, 106 U. S. 523. statute of, or an authority exercised 2. The value of the "matter in disunder, the United States," in which pute” must be shown by the record, or cases an appeal or writ of error lies by evidence aliunde, or the court has without regard to the amount in contro- not jurisdiction. Pratt v. Fitzhugh, i versy.
Black (U. S.) 271. And in cases where From the territorial courts appeals the demand is not for money, and the were originally allowed in cases where nature of the action does not require the amount in controversy exceeded the value of the thing demanded to be $1,000. Rev. Stat. U. S., 702; but this stated in the declaration, it may be sum is now $5,000. Act of March 3rd, proved in either the circuit or supreme 1885, U. S. Stat. at Large, vol. 23, p. court. United States v. Brig Union, 4 443. However, in the case of the Indian Cranch (U. S.) 216; Rush v'. Parker, 5 Territory, the act of March ist, 1889, Cranch (U. S.) 287; Ex parte Bradch. 333, establishing a United States street, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 634; Richmond v. court in said territory provides for ap- Milwaukee, 21 How. (U.S.) 391. See peals and writs of error where the Brant v. Gallup, un Ill. 487. amount exceeds $1,000.
There are, however, certain rights The appellate jurisdiction of the Su- which are not susceptible of valuation, preme Court of the United States in and of which the supreme court will cases brought from the State courts aris- take jurisdiction on appeal without ing under the constitution, laws and proof of value. Such as a possessory treaties of the Union, is not limited by right to a mining claim. Sparrow v. the value of the matter in dispute. Strong, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 97. The value of Buel v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) a person's freedom when the circuit
court decides in favor of a party's freeSee a note on this subject in Kent's dom. But it seems, if the decision in the Commentaries (Lacy's ed.), vol. 1, pp. lower court was to the contrary, the 316–321.
person's value as a slave could and 1. Matter in Dispute.—The matter in should be proved to be in excess of the dispute under the above limitations jurisdictional sum. Lee v. Lee, 8 Pet. must be money, or some right the value (U.S.) 44. And the value of a person's of which can be calculated in money. freedom on a question of imprisonment Carter v. Cutting, 8 Cranch (U. S.) will not be considered within court's 251; Lee v. Lee, 8 Pet. (U.S.) 44; Pratt jurisdiction. Pratt v. Fitzhugh, I v. Fitzhugh, 1 Black (U. S.) 271. Con Black (U. S.) 271. troversies, therefore, respecting the cus- 3. Value of Matter in Dispute. How tody or guardianship of children may Determined. The amount involved in not be reviewed. Ritchie v. Manro, 2 the case before the circuit court dePet. (U. S.) 243; Barry v. Mercein, 5 termines the question of appellate How. (U. S.) 103; De Krafft v. Barney, jurisdiction, and not the sum involved 2 Black (U. S.) 704.
in any previous proceeding involving A controversy as to the validity of the same subject and parties. Grant v. certain proceedings for the removal of McKee, i Pet. (U. S.) 248; The D. R. the seat of government of a territory is Martin, 91 U.S. 365. Nor the collatnot reviewable. Potts v. Chumasero, 92 eral effect of the judgment. New U. S. 358.
Jersey Zinc Co. v. Trotter, 108 U. S. Where national bank officers are re- 564; Opelika v. Daniel, 109 U. S. 108. quired by State statute to report the See Woolley v. Lyon, 115 Ill. 296. bank's assets, etc., for taxation, and a The amount claimed in the circuit bill to enjoin the State officers from court is decisive. It is the amount
supreme court. The amount claimed by the plaintiff determines his right to appeal, and the amount of the judgment determines defendant's right. When defendant admits part of plaintiff's claim, or the plaintiff recovers a part of his claim, the remainder in dispute determines plaintiff's right to appeal.3 And when
actually in controversy, and therefore eral verdict for the defendant. United when that is a money demand, clearly States v. McDaniel, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 634; less than the statutory limit, the su- Udall v. Steamship Ohio, 17 How. (U. preme court cannot be given jurisdiction S.) 17; Contra, Keiser 7. Čox, 116 III. by claiming damages in excess of the 26. limit. Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. (U. S.) In Indiana, under the provisions of a 337: Shacker v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., statute of the State, it has been conclu93 L. S. 241.
sively settled that appeals to the su1. The amount claimed in the court preme court, in cases originating before below cannot be increased by evidence a justice of the peace, only lie when the or amendments in the appellate court. amount in controversy, exclusive of inRichmond v. Milwaukee, 21 How. (U. terest and costs, exceeds $50, whether S) 391; Udall v'. Steamship Ohio, 17 the interest accrued before or after the How. (U. S.) 17. Nor diminished on action was brought. Wagner v. Kasta motion to set aside the judgment of ner, 79 Ind. 162; Klebar v. Corydon, 80 the appellate court. Dodge et al. v. Ind. 95; Galbreath v. Trump, 83 Ind. Knowles, 114 U. S. 436.
381. 2. When judgment is entered in the Set-off.- Where no set-off or counter court below for less than the sum claim has been asserted, the amount rewhich confers jurisdiction on the ap- covered is the amount in controversy, pellate court, the defendant cannot take as to either plaintiff or defendant, and an appeal, but the plaintiff can, if he not the amount claimed by the plaintiff. has claimed a sum greater than the Winship v. Block, 96 Ind. 446; C. statutory limit. Gordon v. Ogden, 3 I. St. L. & C. R. Co. v. McDade, Pet. (U. S.) 33; Smith v. Honey, 3 111 Ind. 23 Pet. (L'. S.) 469; Knapp v. Banks, 2 When there is set up a set-off or How. (U. S.) 73; Pacific Express Co. counter claim, the sum in controversy 1. Malin, 131 U. S. 394; Walker has been held to be the sum of the two 1. L'nited States, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 163; demands. Bowlus v. Brier, 87 Ind. 391; Merrill v. Petty, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 338; Coles v. Peck, 96 Ind. 333. Gray e'. Blanchard, 97 U. S. 564; Solo- But the court will not take judicial mon z'. Reese, 34 Cal. 28. To the con- cognizance of the fact that by computrary are two decisions in a state court. tation it may possibly be made out, as a Tipton v. Chambers, i Metc. (Ky.) matter of inference from the plaintiff's 565; Williams v. Wilson, 5 Dana (Ky.) declaration, that the claim may be less 596.
than the statutory limit when stated to And the defendant cannot take an be more.
Scott v. Lunt's Admr., 6 appeal, though the verdict was large Pet. (U. S.) 349. But see Breidert v. enough to give jurisdiction, if plaintiff Krueger, 76 Ind. 55. remitted the excess above the limit. 3. When the defendant admits part of Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694; the plaintiff's claim, or plaintiff recovers Railroad Co. v. Trook, 100 U. S. 112. a part of his claim, the question of
In State courts it has been held that jurisdiction in appeal is determined by the ad damnum in an action determines the remainder, which is disputed or not the right to an appeal or writ of error, recovered. Tinstman v. First National and not an erroneous judgment in ex- Bank, 100 U. S. 6; East Tenn., Va. & cess of the ad damnum clause. Hem- Ga. R. v. Southern Tel. Co., 112 U. S. menway v. Hickes, 4 Pick. (21 Mass.) 306; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165. 497. Nor the demand set out in the But not the jurisdiction of the trial pleadings. Chamberlain v. Cochran, 8 court. Abney' v. Whitted, 28 La. An. Pick. (25 Mass.) 522.
818. Contra, Maurer v. Derrick, i Ill. Interest.-In determining plaintiff's (Breese) 153. But a bill praying an acright to appeal, interest on the prin- count which involves a sum in excess cipal sum, if expressly claimed, will be of the statutory limit is within the apconsidered when there has been a gen- pellate jurisdiction, though the amount i2 C. of L.-19
defendant pleads a set off, the amount of the set off, and not plaintiff's judgment, may determine defendant's right to appeal. When there are joint plaintiffs, each claiming individually under his own special right, the amount of each individual claim determines the right to appeal, but their joint claim determines when they claim under one title. The same rule applies to joint defendants. In determining defendant's right to appeal, interest to date of judgment, if allowed, is considered, but costs and interest on the judgment is not.5
7. Exclusive Jurisdiction.—Exclusive jurisdiction may be given to a court by the constitution or by statute.6 When the jurisdiction of a court is exclusive, another court cannot exercise such jurisdiction. Such exclusive jurisdiction must be expressly
sought to be recovered may be less, at effect are Larrieux v. Crescent City L. least when the bill has been dismissed S. etc. Co., 30 La. An. 6o9; Picard z'. by the lower court. McCormick v. Wade, 30 La. An. 623. Gray, 13 How. (U. S.) 26, 39.
4. Joint Defendants. - When there 1. When a plaintiff obtained judg- are joint defendants and there is no ment for less than the statutory limit, joint liability, the right to appeal is the defendant may appeal when he has separate and determined by the judg. pleaded a set-off in excess of the statu- ment rendered against each defendant. tory limit, the set-off being considered Ballard Paving Co. v. Mulford, 100 U. the matter in dispute. Ryan v. Bind. S. 147; Russell v. Stansell, 105 U. S. ley, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 66; Hilton v. Dick. 303. inson, 108 U. S. 165; Bradstreet Co. v. Thus as to claims for freight. ShelHiggins, 112 U. S. 227.
don v. Clifton, 23 How. (U. S.) 481. 2. Joint Plaintiffs.--When there are But where the defendant's liability joint plaintiffs, each one claiming under is joint, the total surn is the determining his own special right, the amount of factor. Sinclair v. Cooper, 103 U. S. each individual claim determines his
105. right to appeal. They cannot unite 6. Interest.-In determining defend. their claims. Thus, as to claims for ant's right to appeal when interest on salvage: Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 Pet. (U. the plaintiff's claim to date of judgment S.) 4; Spear v. Place, 11 How. (U. S.) is allowed, the interest will be com522.
puted and defendant's right thereby As to libels in rem for damage to determined. Steamer Rio Grande ö. goods. Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. (U. Otis, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 178; Schlenker
v. Taliaferro, 20 La. An. 565. But As to libels for sailors' wages. Oliver costs and interest on the judgment will v. Alexander, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 143.
not be considered. Walker v. United As to libels for damages by collision. States, 4 Wall (U. S.) 163; Western U. Re Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 106 U.S. Tel. Co. v. Rogers, 93 U. S. 565; Rail5; Rogers v. Steamer St. Charles, 19 road Co. v. Trook, 100 U. S. 112; OglesHow. (U. S.) 108; The Jesse William- by v. Helm, 26 La. An. 61. son, 108 U. S. 305.
See generally, on the subject of jurisAs to separate creditors having inde- diction determined by values, Murpendent claims upon a common fund. free's Justices' Practice, ch. 5; Costs Terry v. Bank of Commerce, 93 U. S. AS AFFECTED BY THE AMOUNT RE44: Šeaver v. Bigelow, 5 Wall. (U. S.) COVERED, 4 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of 208; Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Water- Law, p. 320. man, 106 U. S. 265.
6. See note 7, Jurisdiction Taken 3. But when the parties claim under Away by Statute, p. 303. one title, and for a common and undi- 7. When an inferior court has original vided interest, the total claim, and not exclusive jurisdiction, the superior apeach individual claim, determines the pellate tribunal can only affirm or requestion. Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. verse; it cannot exercise said original (U. S.) 3; Washington Market Co. v. jurisdiction in any way. Arizona v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112. To the same Mix, 1 Arizona 52.
given, except that when a new right or offence is created by a statute and jurisdiction thereof is given to a particular court, the jurisdiction of such court is exclusive. When the jurisdiction of a court under a constitution is not exclusive, the legislature may not divest such jurisdiction, but may vest a concurrent jurisdiction elsewhere.2
When a court is given exclusive officers, by a proceeding in the nature original jurisdiction over all claims up of an appeal to it, such quasi appellate to a certain amount, another court can- jurisdiction is exclusive. Randle v. not exercise any original jurisdiction in Williams, 18 Ark. 38o; Town of Ottasuch cases. Wilson v. Mason, 3 Ark. wa v. Walker, 21 Îll. 605; Chicago, B. 494
& Q. R. Co. v. Frary, 22 Ill 34; MerBut the mere grant of “exclusive ritt v. Farriss, 22 III. 303; Munson v. jurisdiction" to a police court, by the Minor, 22 III. 595; Macklot v. City of statutes of a State, over certain offences, Davenport, 17 Iowa 379, 387; State v. does not exclude the authority of jus- Southern Steamship Co., 13 La. An. tices of the peace to receive complaints 497; Little r'. Greenleaf, 7 Mass. 236; and issue warrants, returnable before Osborn v. Inhabitants of Danvers, 6 that court, against persons charged with Pick. (Mass.) 98; Bates v. City of Bosthose offences. Commonwealth ton, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 93; Howe v. City O'Connell, 8 Gray (Mass.) 464.
of Boston, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 273; Deane 1. Where the legislature creates a v. Todd, 22 Mo. 90; State v. Dauser, 3 new offence or affixes a different penalty Zabr. (N. J.) 552; State v. Powers, 4 to one previously known, and limits the Zabr. (N. J.) 400; State v. Manchester, jurisdiction to a particular court, no 1 Dutch. (N. J.) 531; Kimber v. Schuyl. other court can take cognizance of it. kill County, 20 Pa. St. 366; Hughes v. Rossett v. State, 17 Ala. 496; Aldrich Kline, 30 Pa. St. 227; Wharton v. Birv. Hawkins, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 125. mingham, 37 Pa. St. 371; Greene v.
When a right is solely and exclus. Mumford, 4 R. I. 313. ively of legislative creation (as a me- But this exclusive jurisdiction of such chanic's lien law); when it does not quasi appellate tribunal does not prederive existence from the common law vent a resort to the ordinary tribunals or from the principles prevailing in for remedy against the assessor, when, courts of equity, and jurisdiction of it is from corruption or malice, he has overlimited to particular tribunals, and spe- assessed, or the like. Fuller v. Gould, cific, peculiar remedies are provided for 20 Vt. 643. its enforcement, the jurisdiction and See also the cases cited in note 7, p. remedy, being bounded by the statute, 303, Jurisdiction Taken Away by Statcan be exercised and pursued only before the tribunals, and in the words the 2. Constitutional Jurisdiction.- When statute provides. Chandler v. Hanna, the jurisdiction conferred by a constitu73 Ala. 390.
tion is not exclusive, the legislature So a court of equity cannot aid or may not divest the court of its jurisşupply the defects of a statutory remedy. diction, but may vest a concurrent Janney v. Buell, 55 Ala. 408; Phillips jurisdiction in other tribunals. Dillard 7. Ash's Heirs, 63 Ala. 414.
v. Noel, 2 Ark. 449; Wilson et al. v. "It may, therefore, be safely held that Roach, 4 Cal. 362; Burns v. Henderwhere a statute upon a particular sub- son, 20 Ill. 264; Bank of Mississippi v. ject has provided a tribunal for the de- Duncan, 52 Miss. 740; Martin v. Hartermination of questions connected vey, 54 Miss. 685; Clepper v. State, 4 with that subject, the jurisdiction Tex. 242. But see State v. Judge, 22 thus conferred is exclusive, unless other. La. An. 565. wise expressed or clearly manifested." Where, under the constitution, a Macklot v. City of Davenport, 17 lowa court has original jurisdiction in civil 379, 387, Dodson v. Scroggs, 47 Mo. cases only when sum involved is in ex285; Schuylkill Co. v. Boyer (Pa.), 24 cess of fifty dollars, an act of the legis. Weekly Notes 29.
lature may nevertheless give to that Revenue Laws.- Where a statute in court an appellate jurisdiction in cases relation to revenue provides a tribunal involving a sum less than fifty dollars for the correction of the errors of the with a right of trial de nozio in that