Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

United States Ex Rel. Trask Vs. Wanamaker

United States Ex Rel. Trask vs Wanamaker

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jan-03-1893
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/87433

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
147 U.S. 149
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

United States Ex Rel. Trask

Respondent

Wanamaker

Excerpt

.....which provided for the allowance of appeals and writs of error by the justices of this court under special circumstances, are no longer in force. act of february 25, 1879, c. 99, 20 stat. 320; railroad co. v. grant, 98 u. s. 398 ; dennison v. alexander, 103 u. s. 522 ; act of march 3, 1885, c. 355, 23 stat. 443; cross v. burke, 146 u. s. 82 , 146 u. s. 87 . the sum in dispute on this record, exclusive of costs, is more than $1,000 and less than $5,000. it is well settled that our appellate jurisdiction, when dependent upon the sum or value really in dispute between the parties, is to be tested without regard to the collateral effect of the judgment in another suit between the same or other parties. it is the direct effect of the judgment that can alone be considered. new england mortgage co. v. gay, 145 u. s. 123 ; washington & georgetown railroad co. v. district of columbia, 146 u. s. 227 . this case does not come within either of the sections of the act of march 3, 1885, regulating appeals and writs of error from the supreme court of the district of columbia, and the writ of error must therefore be dismissed.

Full Judgment

United States ex Rel. Trask v. Wanamaker - 147 U.S. 149 (1893)
U.S. Supreme Court United States ex Rel. Trask v. Wanamaker, 147 U.S. 149 (1893)

United States ex Rel. Trask v. Wanamaker

No. 1232

Argued and submitted December 20-21, 1892

Decided January 3, 1893

147 U.S. 149

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SYLLABUS

A writ of error does not lie to a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, denying a writ of mandamus to the Postmaster General to compel him to readjust the salary of a postmaster when the additional amount to become due him would be less than $5,000, and this is not affected by the fact that many similar claims for relief exist, in which the aggregate amount involved is over $100,000.

The case is stated in the opinion.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

The relator applied for the writ of error herein to one of the Justices of this Court by a petition, setting up the alleged errors relied on, and stating that the questions of law involved

"concern the interest of more than one thousand persons, ex-postmasters, who reside in many different states and territories, and are in like case with herself, and who have presented claims for like relief before the Postmaster General, and that all of such claims amount to more than one hundred thousand dollars,"

and praying that the writ be allowed "under section 706 of the Revised Statutes." The order was thereupon granted.

Upon an almost identical petition, a writ of error was allowed in United States v. Vilas, 124 U. S. 86 , but no question as to the pecuniary amount involved in its relation to jurisdiction, or as to the repeal of section 706, was suggested by counsel or considered by the court.

Page 147 U. S. 150

Section 706 of the Revised Statutes of the United States and section 847 of the Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia, which provided for the allowance of appeals and writs of error by the Justices of this Court under special circumstances, are no longer in force. Act of February 25, 1879, c. 99, 20 Stat. 320; Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U. S. 398 ; Dennison v. Alexander, 103 U. S. 522 ; Act of March 3, 1885, c. 355, 23 Stat. 443; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82 , 146 U. S. 87 .

The sum in dispute on this record, exclusive of costs, is more than $1,000 and less than $5,000. It is well settled that our appellate jurisdiction, when dependent upon the sum or value really in dispute between the parties, is to be tested without regard to the collateral effect of the judgment in another suit between the same or other parties. It is the direct effect of the judgment that can alone be considered. New England Mortgage Co. v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123 ; Washington & Georgetown Railroad Co. v. District of Columbia, 146 U. S. 227 .

This case does not come within either of the sections of the Act of March 3, 1885, regulating appeals and writs of error from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and the writ of error must therefore be

Dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial