103 U.S. 522 - Dennison v. Alexander — 103 U.S. 522

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1927

2 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1A judgment or a. decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia cannot be re-examined here, unless the matter .in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the value of $2,600.

¶2Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of. Columbia.

¶3Alexander, on the fifth day of January, 1875, filed his bill in the court below against Dennison and others, commissioners of the District of Columbia, hnd the First National Bank, to restrain the sale of real estate in the city of Washington which the commissioners had advertised to satisfy the amount due for improvements made by the board of public works.- The certificate of indebtedness issued by that board and transferred to the bank, was for less than $400 and more than $100. A perpetual injunction was awarded and an appeal allowed by a justice of this court,

¶4Mr. Albert Cr. Riddle for the appellant.

¶5Mr. Joseph J. Ste-ivart for the appellee.

¶6Mr. Chief Justice Waite

¶7delivered the opinion of the court.

¶8We think this case is governed by Railroad Company v. Grand, 98 U. S. 398. In that case we held that the act of .Feb. 25, 1879, c. 99, sects. 4, 5 (20 Stat. 320), took away our' tight to hear and determine cases from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia where the matter in dispute did not exceed $2,500, and that it operated on pending cases which had been brought here under the provision^ of sect. 847 of tbe Revised Statutes relating to the District. This case came here under sect. 848, which provided for the allowance of appeals and writs of error by the justices of this court under certain circumstances, when the matter in dispute was less- than- $1,000, the then general jurisdictional amount, but exceeded $100. There is no reservation in the repealing, act' as to this class of pending - cases any more than the other. Both sections have reference *523to the same general subject-matter, that is to say, our review of the judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the District in cases where jurisdiction has been made to depend on the value of the matter in dispute. Under the act of 1879 we can no longer hear any of that class of cases, unless the'amount exceeds- $2,500.

¶9Appeal dismissed, each party to pay his own costs.