Case: United States, Plaintiff in Error v. George M'Daniel, Defendant in Error
Abbreviation: United States v. M'Daniel
Decision Date: 1832-01
Docket Number: 
Citation: 6 Pet. 634
Volume: 31
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: United States, Plaintiff in Error v. George M’Daniel, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Pages: 634–634

Head Matter:
United States, Plaintiff in Error v. George M’Daniel, Defendant in Error.
-The declaration was for .a balance of accounts of nine hundred and eighty-eight dollars and ninety-four cents, and the ad damnum was laid at two thousand dollars. The bill of exceptions showed that the United States claimed interest •on the balances due them. Under those circumstances it is no objection to the-jurisdiction, that the' bill of exceptions was taken by the. counsel for the United States to a refusal of the court to grant an instruction asked by the United Slates, which was applicable to certain items of credit only claimed by ' the- defendants, which would reduce the debt below the sum of one thousand dollars. The' court cannot judicially know what influence that refusal had upon the verdict..
■ERROR to the circuit court of fhé United States for the county of Washington in the District of Columbia.
A motion was made by Mr Coxe, for the defendant,
to dismiss this suit for want of jurisdiction; the sum in controversy at the trial being less than one thousand dollars, and it appearing from the bill of exceptions, that the only items in controversy^ which the instruction excepted to, was given by the circuit court, were less than that sum.
Mr Taney, attorney general, contrá.

Opinion:
Mr Chief Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the court, overruling the motion. . The declaration is for a balance of accounts of nine hundred and eighty-eight dollars and ninety-four cents;- and the ad damnum is laid at two thousand dollar* The bill of exceptions shows, that the United States claimed interest on the balance due to them. There is a general verdict for the defendant. Under these circumstances, it is no objection to the jurisdiction that the bill of exceptions was taken by the counsel for the United States to a refusal of the circuit- court to grant an instruction asked by the United States, which was applicable jo certain items of credit only, claimed by the defendant, which would reduce the debt below the'sum of one thousand dollars. The court cannot judicially know what influence that refusal had upon the'verdict.
The motion was overruled.