Tintsman v. National Bank
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Household Finance Corporation of Atlanta v. Charles B. Jones (5th Cir. 1963)
- New York Credit Men's Ass'n v. Brown (2d Cir. 1941)
- Sadler v. Pennsylvania Refining Co (District Court, W.D. South Carolina 1940)
- American United Life Ins. v. Franklin (8th Cir. 1938)
- Municipality of Rio Piedras v. Serra, Garabis & Co. (1st Cir. 1932)
- Vandermost v. Withrow (Or. 1926)
- Le Roy v. Hartwick (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1916)
- Hedrick v. Building Ass'n (W. Va. 1902)
- Carne v. Russ (Supreme Court of the United States 1894)
- Johnson v. Board of Commissioners (Ind. 1894)
- Cabot v. McMaster (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1894)
- Edwards v. Bates County (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri 1893)
- Gorman v. Havird (Supreme Court of the United States 1891)
- Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1885)
- Jenness v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Rome (Supreme Court of the United States 1884)
- Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway v. Knox (Supreme Court of the United States 1884)
- Webster v. Buffalo Insurance (Supreme Court of the United States 1884)
- Hilton v. Dickinson (Supreme Court of the United States 1883)
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.
In Gray v. Blanchard (97 U. S. 564), we held that a case must be dismissed, if, on an examination of the whole record,' it appeared that the value of the matter actually in dispute between the parties was less than our jurisdictional amount. This writ of error was brought by the defendant below to reverse a judgment against him of more than $5,000; but on looking into the record we find that the ca¡se was heard on an agreed statement of facts in the nature of a special verdict, in which it appeared that the plaintiff claimed of the defendant $8,238.79, and interest from June 4, 1876. The defendant admitted that he owed of this amount $5,099.59, for which the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment. The only controversy was as to the liability of the defendant for the difference between - what he admitted to. be due and what the plaintiff claimed, or $3,134.20. This, then, is the amount actually in dispute,'and as it is less than $5,000, we have no jurisdiction.
Writ dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.