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.
John Schenck, Appellant, v. Mathew Marx, Respondent, 1890 — 125 N.Y. 703 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
John Schenck, Appellant, v. Mathew Marx, Respondent
125 N.Y. 703·New York Court of Appeals·1890·NY
All concur.
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
John Schenck, Appellant, v. Mathew Marx, Respondent.
(Argued December 8, 1890;
decided December 16, 1890.)
Where, in an action for money had and received, plaintiff recovered a judgment for less than $500, and his own evidence on the trial did not show a claim to that amount exclusive of costs, and plaintiff did not appeal, but, upon an appeal by defendant, the judgment was reduced and as thus modified, affirmed, held, that the amount in controversy was the amount of the original judgment, and so, that this court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal to it by plaintiff. (Code Civ. Pro. § 191.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made February 11,1889, which modified and affirmed as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.
[MAJORITY — Earl, J.,]
The following is the mem. of opinion:
“ This action is founded upon an implied contract for money had and received. Hence an appeal from any judgment rendered in the action is not allowed to this court by section 191 of the Code, if the matter in controversy is less than $500. The judgment, exclusive of costs, is for $238.70. The plaintiff was satisfied with the judgment and did not appeal therefrom. The defendant was not satisfied and appealed, and hence thereafter the only controversy between the parties was over that judgment. The General Term reduced the judgment to sixty dollars and interest, and affirmed it as. thus modified. The plaintiff complains of the modification, and the matter still in controversy is no more than the amount of the original judgment. But if we go behind the original judgment, it is impossible to see upon the plaintiffs own evidence and claim at the trial how the matter in controversy was as, much as $500. Hence we have no jurisdiction to entertain, this appeal, and it must be dismissed, with costs.”
Henry G. Willcox for appellant.
Mathew Marx, respondent in person.
Earl, J.,
reads for dismissal of appeal.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.