Schacker v. Hartford Fire Insurance
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- George v. Lewis (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1962)
- Bishop v. Hamlet (Wash. 1961)
- Clarence Payne v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (5th Cir. 1959)
- Colorado Life Co. v. Steele (8th Cir. 1938)
- North American Iron & Steel Co. v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 1955)
- Adams v. United States (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1952)
- Loveland v. Riley (Wash. 1927)
- Ingham v. Harper & Son (Wash. 1912)
- Withers v. Hopkins Place Savings Bank (Ga. 1898)
- Cabot v. McMaster (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1894)
- Gorman v. Havird (Supreme Court of the United States 1891)
- Simon v. House (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Texas 1891)
- Anchor Milling Co. v. Walsh (Mo. 1888)
- Webster v. Buffalo Insurance (Supreme Court of the United States 1884)
- Hilton v. Dickinson (Supreme Court of the United States 1883)
- Bachelder & Collins v. Richardson (Va. 1882)
- Gray v. Blanchard (Supreme Court of the United States 1878)
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.
On opening this record, we find that the action below was assumpsit upon a policy of insurance for $1,400. There are two counts in the declaration, but they are both upon the same' cause of action; and although the damages, both in the writ and declaration, are laid at $3,000, it is apparent from the whole record that there could not be a recovery in •any event for -more than $1,400 and interest from July 14, 1873.
Our jurisdiction, when this writ issued, was limited in cases of this character to those in which the “matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of $2,000.” Rev. Stat.,-sect. 692. Now, in the same class of cases, where *242 a judgment or decree has been rendered since May 1, 1875, the amount must be $5,000. 18 Stat. 316.
In Lee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337, we held, that “in an action upon a money demand, whére the general issue is pleaded, the matter in dispute is the debt claimed, and its amount, as stated in the body of the declaration, and.not merely the damages alleged or the prayer ,for judgment at its conclusion must be considered in determining whether this court can take jurisdiction.” Applying this rule, which is clearly right, to the present case, it is ordered that the writ of error be
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.