Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA v. REDICK, 1884 — 110 U.S. 224 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA v. REDICK
110 U.S. 22428 L. Ed. 124·Supreme Court of the United States·1884
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA v. REDICK.
IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR •THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA.
Submitted December 17th, 1883.
Decided January 21st, 1884.
Error — Jurisdiction.
When the plaintiff below in open court, by permission of court, remits all of the Verdict in excess of $5,000 and judgment is entered for that sum and costs, the writ of error will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Action below to recover penalty for taking usurious interest. On the trial verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for $6,013.32. Plaintiff
“ thereupon in open court offered to remit from the- amount of said verdict the sum of $1,013.32, and the court, upon due consideration. thereof, allowed said remitter, and ordered the same to be duly entered of record, and thereupon it was ordered and adjudged by the court that the said plaintiff have and recover from the said defendant, the First National Bank of Omaha, the sum of five thousand dollars with costs of suit, etc.”
Plaintiff brought the cause here by writ of error. Defendant in error moved to dismiss.
Mr. John I 'Redick for himself in support of the motion.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
This motion is granted on the authority of Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694, and Alabama Gold Life Insurance Company v. Nichols, 109 U. S. 232.
Dismissed.