Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Williams

Citations

• 122 Va. 502
• 95 S.E. 417
• 1918 Va. LEXIS 113

Syllabus

<p>1. Appeal and Error—Amount in Controversy.—In an action of assumpsit to recover excess freight charges on creosote, it was entirely competent for the plaintiffs to claim interest or not as they chose, and the trial court was powerless to make them claim it on demand of defendant, there being no evidence of a purpose to defeat the jurisdiction of a court of record by the release of a part of a demand previously asserted. Consequently, where the amount in controversy, without interest, was beneath the jurisdictional limit of the Supreme Court of Appeals, a writ of error must be dismissed as improvidently awarded, unless jurisdiction can be shown on some other ground than the amount in controversy.</p> <p>2. Constitutional Law—State Corporation Commission—Review of Decisions■—Section 156 of the Constitution.—The State Corporation Commission bad prescribed no rate on creosote oil in steel drums. The commission had, however, provided that “articles not enumerated will be classified with analogous articles.” In an action of assumpsit to recover excess freight charges on creosote shipped from Richmond to Norfolk, the only'question settled by the judgment was to which of two different classes the creosote oil in drums belonged.</p> <p>Held: That -the judgment did not in any way call in question any action of the State Corporation Commission and accordingly was not in contravention of section 156 of the Constitution. If it be conceded that the court plainly erred in its classification, it was an error of judgment in the determination of the rights of the parties, which cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Appeals when the amount in controversy is less than $800.</p>