Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

28 U.S. 469

Smith v. Honey

Supreme Court of the United States

January Term, 1830

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1830-01

<p>ERROR from the district court of Missouri.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on M'Donald v. Magruder

Cited in Case Law’s definition of “amount in controversy (writ of error by defendant below)”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 7–0 · Decided 1830-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1896

3 district · 1 state decisions

501830184018501860187018801890decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

ERROR from the district court of Missouri.

¶2

In the district court of Missouri, John W. Honey instituted an action of trespass on the case for the recovery of damages from John Smith T., the defendant in the action, for the use of a 'new and useful improvement in screening tables for discriminating, selecting and separating perfect from imperfect shot,' for which letters patent had been granted to the plaintiff by the United States. The damages were laid in the declaration at two thousand dollars; and at September term 1827 the cause was tried, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff, for one hundred dollars, upon which judgment was entered for the plaintiff below.

¶3

On the trial, the counsel for the defendant filed several bills of exceptions to the opinion of the court, and prosecuted this writ of error.

¶4

After the case was opened for the plaintiff in error, the court ordered the writ of error to be dismissed, the same having been sued out by the defendant in the district court, and the sum in controversy, as to him, being no more than one hundred dollars, the amount of the verdict in that court. See the case of Gordon vs. Ogden, at this term, ante p. 33.

¶5

Benton and Hempstead for the plaintiff in error; Lawless for the defendant.

¶6

Afterwards Mr. M'Ginness, for the plaintiff in error, on affidavit, stating that the plaintiff in the district court estimated the damages which had accrued to him by the use of his machine by the defendant at two thousand dollars, and had sought to recover the same in the action, moved to reinstate the cause.

¶7

The court overruled the motion.

/28/us/469 · .json · Public domain