Hancock v. Barton
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THE plaintiff brought an action of trespass vi et armis, for an assault and battery against the defendant, and laid his damages at 2000 dollars.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiff brought an action of trespass vi et armis, for an assault and battery against the defendant, and laid his damages at 2000 dollars. The jury found a verdict for 350 dollars; and Scott and Ewing, on behalf of the defendant, now moved for a rule to shew cause why judgment should not be entered for that sum without costs; on the ground' that the amount of the verdict being below the sum required to give jurisdiction to this court, the plaintiff was not entitled to costs. replied, that if the court had jurisdiction, costs followed of course; and that in actions of tort the sum laid…
1Opinion of the Court
The judges delivered the following opinions :
Tilghman C. J.
If this court has jurisdiction, the plaintiff is entitled to costs. Whether it has jurisdiction depends on the act of 20th March, 1810. It appears from that act, that the court has “ original jurisdiction within the city and “ county of Philadelphia in all civil actions, wherein the mat- “ ter in controversy shall be of the value of g 500 and up- “ wards.” In actions founded on tort, the matter in controversy is the sum laid in damages in the declaration. That is what the plaintiff claims, and the jury may give damages to that amount.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wilson v. DanielSupreme Court of the United States · 1798
- City of Nashville v. Madison Park Land Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1927
3Cited by1 opinion
- Forrester v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842