Howard v. Carroll

Citations

• 195 F. 646
• 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1668

Syllabus

<p>1. Courts (§ 329*)—Federal Courts—Jurisdiction—Amount in Controversy.</p> <p>Where plaintiff’s statement of his case shows that he cannot recover as much as the jurisdictional minimum, the federal court must not hear the case.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 897; Dec. Dig. § 329.*]</p> <p>2. Courts (§ 328*)—Federal Jurisdiction—Amount in Controversy—Attorney’s Fees.</p> <p>An attorney’s fee contracted to be paid by the maker of a note stipulating for interest, and costs of collection, including an attorney’s fee, is a part of the amount in controversy, where the declaration in an action on the note asserts that the principal of the note and the attorney’s fee is in controversy, and the court in determining the amount in controversy must take into consideration the amount of the attorney’s fee.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 890-896; Dee. Dig. § 328.*]</p> <p>3. Courts (§ 329*)—Federal Jurisdiction—Amount in Controversy—Attorney’s Fees. '</p> <p>A declaration in an action on a Georgia note for $3,000, with an attorney’s fee of 10 per cent, if collected by law, which demands judgment for $3,300, but which does not allege that plaintiff before suit gave any notice in writing of his intention to sue, as required by Civ. Code Ga. 1910, § 4252, states a cause of action within the jurisdiction of a federal court under the rule that plaintiff’s allegations of value govern in determining jurisdiction, except where on the face of the pleading it is not legally possible for him to recover the jurisdictional amount, since the declaration merely fails to show affirmatively that a jurisdictional amount can be recovered.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, • Cent. Dig. § 897; Dec. Dig. § 829.*</p> <p>Jurisdiction of circuit courts as determined by amount in controversy, see notes to Auer v. Lombard, 19 C. C. A. 75; Tennent-Stribling Stove Co. v. Roper, 36 C. C. A. 459; O. J. Lewis Mercantile Co. v. Kelpner, 10