Tintsman Vs. National Bank

Tintsman vs National Bank

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1879

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/83659

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/83659
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1879
Case Number: 100 U.S. 6
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tintsman

Respondent

National Bank

Excerpt

tintsman v. national bank - 100 u.s. 6 (1879) u.s. supreme court tintsman v. national bank, 100 u.s. 6 (1879) tintsman v. national bank 100 u.s. 6 motion to dismiss a writ of error to the circuit court of the united states for the western district of pennsylvania syllabus where, by an agreed statement of facts in the nature of a special verdict, the plaintiff's claim was admitted by the defendant, except the sum of $3,134.20, held that that sum was the amount actually in dispute, and although judgment was rendered below for the entire claim, being more than $5,000, the writ of error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. the facts are stated in the opinion of the court. mr. chief justice waite 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 case 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 $8,233.79, 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.

Full Judgment

Tintsman v. National Bank - 100 U.S. 6 (1879)
U.S. Supreme Court Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U.S. 6 (1879)

Tintsman v. National Bank

100 U.S. 6

MOTION TO DISMISS A WRIT OF ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SYLLABUS

Where, by an agreed statement of facts in the nature of a special verdict, the plaintiff's claim was admitted by the defendant, except the sum of $3,134.20, held that that sum was the amount actually in dispute, and although judgment was rendered below for the entire claim, being more than $5,000, the writ of error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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 case 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 $8,233.79, 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.

Same Parties Tintsman vs National Bank Same Subject Education

Education jurisdictional amount Statement of fact special verdict chief justice circuit court national bank