Case ID: us_110/html/0052-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Waite", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JENNESS v. CITIZENS’ NATIONAL BANK OF ROME.
    IN ERROR ■ TO THE CIKCUIT COURT. FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP ' MICHIGAN.
    Submitted December 20th, 1883.
    Decided January 7th, 1884.
    
      Appeal — Jurisdiction: •
    When a judgment below is for an amount sufficient to give jurisdiction above, but it appears affirmatively on the record that after deducting from it an amount not in- contest below, there remains less than the jurisdictional ■bum,this court has no jurisdiction.
    
      Mr. W. B. Williams for the plaintiff in error.
   Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment in this case is for $1,215.16, but it appears affirmatively on the face of the record that of this amount $2,669.03 was not disputed below. The defence related alone to the difference between these two amounts, which is less than $5,000. The dispute here is only in reference, to the amount contested below. Such being the case, we have no jurisdiction. The cases of Gray v. Blanchard, 97 U. S. 564; Tintsman v. national Bank, 100 U. S. 6; and Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165, are conclusive to this effect.

Dismissed.