Case ID: va_16/html/0557-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Melson v. Melson’s Administrator.
    Wednesday, March 11th, 1812.
    Court of Appeals — Jurisdiction—Matter in Controversy —What Constitutes. — The damages allowed by law. upon affirmance of a county court judgment by a superior court of law, are not to be reckoned as part of the “matter in controversy,” for the purpose of giving the court of appeals jurisdiction. If, therefore, the judgment be for less than one hundred dollars; but would amount to more, by adding the damages, upon affirmance, an appeal does not lie to the court of appeals.
    See Henry’s Executor v. Elcan, ante, 541.
    This was an action of assumpsit, on behalf of Jonathan Melson against Smith Melson, in the county court of Accomack. The declaration demanded 481. 2s. 2d. for goods, &c. sold and delivered. The verdict and judgment was for 291. 6s. exclusive of costs. Upon a writ of supersedeas, the judgment was affirmed by the district court, with costs and damages according to law; whereupon the plaintiff in error, who was defendant in the county court, appealed to this court.
    The case was submitted, on the question, whether the damages allowed by law upon the affirmance of the judgment were to be considered as part of the “matter in controversy  so that, if the judgment, added to the damages, *amounted to more than one hundred dollars, an appeal to this court would lie.
    
      
       See monographic note on “Appeal and Error” appended to Hill v. Salem, etc., Turnpike Co., 1 Rob. 263.
    
    
      
       See 1 Key. Code, c. 63, s. 2.
    
   Thursday, March 12th, the president reported the opinion of the court, that the appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.