Supreme Court of the United States, 1886

New York Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National Bank

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided November 8, 1886 · Waite, Field

118 U.S. 608; 7 S. Ct. 23; 30 L. Ed. 259; 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1952 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. William F. McRae, for the motion., Mr. Menry M. Anderson, Mr. Julien T. Davies, and Mr. Moward Townsend, opposing.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. John Jay Beattie (9th Cir. 1980)
Decker v. Williams (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1896)
Tope v. Nichols (Kan. 1925)
Hale v. Grogan (Ky. Ct. App. 1899)
Massachusetts Benefit Assn. v. Miles (Supreme Court of the United States 1891)
Quebec Steamship Co. v. Merchant (Supreme Court of the United States 1890)
Keller v. Ashford (Supreme Court of the United States 1890)
District of Columbia v. Gannon (Supreme Court of the United States 1889)
Robostelli v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1888)
Zeckendorf v. Johnson (Supreme Court of the United States 1887)

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

- delivered the opinion of the court.

The rule is settled that, when a writ of error is sued out from this court by the defendant below, and no question is presented growing out of a partial defence to the action, or a counter-claim or a set-off, the value of the matter in dispute is fixed by the amount of the judgment. Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 33; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165; Henderson v. Wadsworth, 115 U. S. 264, 276. Our jurisdiction cannot be invoked *610 •until after a final judgment, and, until such a judgment has been rendered, the cause remains in the full judicial control of the court in which it is pending. It was because of this that we declined to take jurisdiction in Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, where the verdict was for more than $5000, but was reduced to that amount, by leave of the court, before the judgment, which was for the reduced sum. It is true that our jurisdiction depends on the amount of the judgment, exclusive of interest thereon, Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rogers, 93 U. S. 565, 566; but here the interest accrued before judgment, and not after. In The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451, jurisdiction was taken in a case where the decree was for $1982, “ and interest from the date of the report,” which made more than $2000 due at the time of the decree, that being then the jurisdictional limit.

As the jurisdiction has once attached it cannot be defeated by a waiver, or release of the amount in excess of $5000.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Mr. Justice Field took no part in this decision.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.