Scott v. Ezra Lunt's Administrator
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. McCoy (Wash. 1963)
- Interstate Building & Loan Ass'n v. Edgefield Hotel Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina 1901)
- Native American Church of North America v. Navajo Tribal Council (10th Cir. 1959)
- Blumenthal v. Lloyd (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1896)
- De Krafft v. Barney (Supreme Court of the United States 1863)
- Van Hook v. Whitlock (New York Supreme Court 1841)
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
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Upon an inspection of the record, it appears that the plaintiff claims in his declaration the sum of twelve hundred and forty-one dollars as remaining due to him, and he has laid the ad damnum at one thousand dollars. Under such circumstances, a general verdict having been given against him, the matter in dispute is, in our opinion, the sum which he claims in the ad damnum. The court cannot judicially take notice, that by computation it may possibly be made oút as matter of inference from the declaration, that the plaintiff’s claim, in reality, must be less than one thousand dollars: much less can it take such notice in a case where tbe plaintiff might be allowed interest on his claim by the jury, so as to swell his claim beyond one thousand dollar’s. The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.