John Smith T. v. Honey
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Cruz v. Cameron Financial Group Incorporated (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2024)
- Draper v. Clark (Ohio 1898)
- Decker v. Williams (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1896)
- Richmond v. Brummie (Kan. 1893)
- Hilton v. Dickinson (Supreme Court of the United States 1883)
- Tipton v. Chambers (Ky. Ct. App. 1859)
- Kanouse v. Martin (Supreme Court of the United States 1854)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Where the verdict for the plaintiff in the circuit court is for a less amount than two thousand dollars, and the defendant prosecutes a writ of error, this court has not jurisdiction; although the demand of the plaintiff in the suit exceeded two thousand dollars.
In the district court of Missouri, John W. Honey instituted an action of trespass on the case for the recovery of damages from John Smith T., the defendant in the action, for the.use of a “ new and useful -improvement in screening tables for discriminating, selecting and separating perfect from imperfect shot,” for which letters patent had been granted to the plaintiff by the United States. The damages were laid in the declaration at two thousand dollars •, and at. September term. 1827 the cause was tried, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff, for one hundred dollars, upon which judgment was • entered for the plaintiff below.
On.the trial, the counsel for the defendant filed several bills of exceptions to. the opinion of the court, and prosecuted this writ of error.
After the case was opened for the plaintiff in error, the court ordered the writ of error to be dismissed, the same having been sued out-by the defendant in the district court, and the süm in- controversy, as to him, being no more than one hundred dollars, the amount of the verdict in that court. See the casé of Gordon vs. Ogden, at this term; -ante p. 33.
The court overruled the motion.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.