Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 F. 665

West v. Woods

United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · decided 1883-11-20

<p>J ORISDICTTON — MATTER IN DlSPOT’E.</p> <p>It is the settled doctrine that, so far as concerns courts of the first instance, the declaration or the pleading of the plaintiil presenting his claim is the sole test by which the jurisdiction is to bo decided, so far as the matter in dispute is concerned.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1904

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is the settled doctrine that, so far as concerns courts of the first instance, the declaration or pleadings of the plaintiff, presenting his claim, is the sole test by which the jurisdiction is to be decided, so far as the matter in dispute is concerned. The jurisdiction, when dependent upon the amount in dispute in case of appeal or writ of error, is determined by a different standard. There the test is the amount in dispute at the time the appeal is taken. Where the declaration shows the requisite amount is demanded, this court has jurisdiction.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hill v. Gordon

““The words ‘matter in dispute’ do not refer to disputes in the country, or the intentions or expectations of the parties concerning them, but to the ■claims presented on the record to the legal consideration of the court. What the plaintiff thus claims is the ‘ matter in dispute,’ though the claim may be incapable of proof, or only in part well founded.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hill v. Gordon

Relies on John Gordon v. James Longest · Vattier v. Hinde

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-11-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1J ORISDICTTON — MATTER IN DlSPOT’E.

¶2It is the settled doctrine that, so far as concerns courts of the first instance, the declaration or the pleading of the plaintiil presenting his claim is the sole test by which the jurisdiction is to bo decided, so far as the matter in dispute is concerned.

¶3Exception to Jurisdiction on the ground that the matter in dispute does not exceed the sum of $500.

¶4Charles B. Singleton and B. II. Browne, for plaintiff.

¶5W. S. Benedict, for defendant.

¶7Bn,lisos, J.

¶8The petition presents as the cause of action an open account for the sum of $797.51, with interest upon the various items from the dates when they respectively accrued. The exception or plea to the jurisdiction sets up that a credit of $350 was purposely omitted by the plaintiff, and that his acknowledgment shows this; that therefore the matter really in dispute is only $447.51. The settled doctrine is that, so far as concerns courts of the first instance, the amount or value stated in the declaration or the pleading of the plaintiff presenting his claim is the sole test of jurisdiction. The acknowledgment of the plaintiff would, of course, support a plea of payment pro tanto, but it would be only as proof in support of a counter-plea on the part of the defendant.

¶9The subsequent admission of the plaintiff, showing a less amount really due than claimed, could have no greater effect upon the question of jurisdiction than a verdict or final judgment. Kanouse v. Martin, 15 How. 207. “The words ‘matter in dispute’ do not refer to disputes in the country, or the intentions or expectations of the parties concerning them, but to the claims presented on the record to the legal consideration of the court. What the plaintiff thus claims is the matter in dispute, though that claim may be incapable of proof, or only in part well founded.” See, also, Gordon v. Longest, 16 Pet. 97, and Curt. Comm. § 436; Sherman v. Clark, 3 McLean, 91, The jurisdiction, when dependent upon the amount in dispute, in case of appeal or writ of error, is determined by a different standard; there the test is the amount in dispute at the time the appeal is taken or the writ of error sued out. Whore the declaration shows the requisite amount is demanded, this court has jurisdiction, and the amount finally found to be actually due can be considered only with respect to. the costs.

¶10The exception must be overruled.

/18/f1d/665 · .json · Public domain