ZECKENDORF v. JOHNSON

ZECKENDORF v. JOHNSON. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. Submitted November 21, 1887. Decided December 12, 1887. The value of the matter in dispute is to he determined by the amount due at the time of the judgment of the court helow, which is brought here for review, including interest up to the time of the judgment of the Appellate Court, if the appeal is from an Appellate Court, and the judgment which is taken to the Appellate Court bears interest. Findings of fact in the court helow are conclusive, and cannot be reexamined here. This was a motion to dismiss, with which was united a motion to affirm. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Van H. Manning and Mr. J. B. Edmonds for the motions. Mr. E. M. Marble, opposing. [MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite] Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. A judgment was rendered September 28, 1885, by the District Court of Arizona, in and for the. county of Pima, against L. Zeckendorf & Co., the appellants, and in favor of Johnson, the appellee, for $4304.93, “with interest on $2800..of said sum, af the rate of two per cent per month from the date hereof until paid, and interest on $1504.33, at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the date hereof until paid.” This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory, on appeal, November 8, 1886. From that judgment of affirmance this appeal was taken, which the appellee moves to dis"miss, on the ground that the value of the matter in dispute does not exceed $5000, as now required by law. Act of March 3, 1885, c. 355, 23 Stat. 443. The value of the matter in dispute is to be determined by the amount due at the time of the judgment brought here for review, to wit, the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territpry, and not at the time of the judgment of the District Court. Adding the interest to the judgment of the District Court until the date of that of the Supreme Court, as we must for the purpose of determining our jurisdiction, The Patapsco, 12 Wall. 451; N. Y. Elevated Railroad v. Fifth National Bank, 118 U. S. 608, we find that.the amount due at the time of the judgment of the Supreme Court was considerably more than $5000. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied. But, on looking into the record, we discover that the errors assigned relate only to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings. . These we cannot consider. The findings of fact by the court below are conclusive, and cannot be reexamined here. The Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440, and cases there cited. Upon the facts as found there can be no doubt of the correctness of the judgment. It is apparent if the case is kept here longer it will be for .delay only. For that reason the motion to affirm is granted. Affirmed.