Case Name: Hepburn v. Lewis
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1800-10
Citations: 2 Call 497
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hepburn v. Lewis.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 385–385

Head Matter:
Hepburn v. Lewis.
[October Term, 1800.]
Appellate Court — Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals cannot take cognizance oí a less sum than .000.
Same — Same.- —Qnere. If the sum demanded by the plaintiff in the District Court be more than 830., and the verdict iind less, the District Court can give judgment for the amount of the verdict?
The question made at the bar was, whether as the writ was for ¿SO., the District Court ought not to have given judgment for the appellant, although the sum found by the verdict was less than ¿30.
Against the non suit it was said, that the act of Assembly was, that where the plaintiff shall claim ¿30. or upwards, the court shall have jurisdiction ; and therefore as more, than that sum, was laid in the writ and declaration, the plaintiff below was entitled to judgment. That otherwise it would be in the power of the defendant, by holding up his discounts, always to nonsuit the plaintiff, and charge him with the costs of suit; as the plaintiff could not possibly know the discount which would be claimed. That upon this' principle the old General Court, and the Courts in England, have sustained verdicts for sums, below the ordinary jurisdiction of the court.
Appellate Conrt — Jurisdiction—Matter in Controversy. — The principal case is cited in Rymer v. Hawkins, 18 W. Va. 316; Lewis v. Long, 3 Munf. 146, 155; Cooper v. Saunders, 1 H. & M. 421; Buckner v. Metz, 77 Va. 124. See monographic note on “Appeals.”
It was held in Cooke v. Piles, 2 Munf. 151, citing the principal case, that where a complainant is appellant, from a superior court of chancery, the court of appeals has no jurisdiction, unless the subject in controversy be a freehold or franchise, or amount to one hundred and fifty dollars, exclusive of all costs, Incident to the original judgment, or arising from injunction or appeals, subsequent thereto.
Same — Costs.—wherever an appeal Is dismissed as improvidently allowed, or a supersedeas quashed as improvidently awarded, the court has always refused to give costs to the party prevailing. Ayres v. Lewellin, 3 Leigh 616, citing the principal case; Clarke v. Conn. 1 Munf. 160: Lewis v. Long, 3 Munf. 136: Hutchinson v. Kellam, 3 Munf. 202; Skipwith v. Young, 5 Munf. 276; Bootes v. Holliday, 4 Munf. 323: Miller v. Blannerhassett, 5 Munf. 187; Thomson v. Evans. 6 Munf. 397; Ashby v. Kiger, 3 Rand. 165.

Opinion:
*Per. Cur.
This court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. Por the appellant appeals from the refusal of the District Court, to enter judgment, for the amount of the verdict; which verdict is for less money, than the law allows appeals to his court for; and therefore, as the very sum, which he asks this court, in the first instance, to give him judgment for, is below our jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed.