Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 U.S. 287

Rush v. Parker

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 1, 1809

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1809-02

contended, that the replevin bond being in the penal sum of 1,200 dollars only, was conclusive evidence that the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, did not amount to 2,000 dollars, and consequently this court has ho jurisdiction in the case. stated that he did not know till yesterday that this point would be made in the cause, and prayed, time to show by affidavits the real value pi the matter in dispute. Which. The court granted.

2 counsel of record

Relies on Rush v. Parker

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 7–0 · Decided 1809-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1939

2 federal appellate ·

3018091810182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

¶1Thiscowtwill vits as to tlK? ™ftier.1n ais* pute.

¶2ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Mary land, in an action of replevin.

¶3I. P. Boyd., for the defendant in error,

¶4contended, that the replevin bond being in the penal sum of 1,200 dollars only, was conclusive evidence that the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, did not amount to 2,000 dollars, and consequently this court has ho jurisdiction in the case.

¶5Martin, contra,

¶6stated that he did not know till yesterday that this point would be made in the cause, and prayed, time to show by affidavits the real value pi the matter in dispute. Which.

¶7The court granted.

¶8Livingston, J. thought that leave ought not to be given, on.account of the delay it would produce. He had found a practice established here of receiving such affidavits; but he did not know of any cáse in which time had been’ given to produce thtjm;. and he would not consent to give it now. The case was *288brought up to last term. The party ought to have' come prepared to support the jurisdiction.

¶9March 15.

¶10This being the last day of the. term, and no affidavits having been produced,

¶11The writ of error was dismissed, this court having no jurisdiction in the case.

/9/us/287 · .json · Public domain