Kirby v. American Soda Fountain Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED' STATES FOB THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Kirby filed his first original amended petition in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, against the American Soda Fountain Company, averring tha’t he was induced by false representations by defendant to agree to exchange his soda fountain apparatus for the soda fountain apparatus of de^. fendant and-pay defendant $2,025 in addition, and signed a memorandum in relation thereto,…
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED' STATES FOB THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Kirby filed his first original amended petition in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, against the American Soda Fountain Company, averring tha’t he was induced by false representations by defendant to agree to exchange his soda fountain apparatus for the soda fountain apparatus of de^. fendant and-pay defendant $2,025 in addition, and signed a memorandum in relation thereto, which, however,' plaintiff alleged did not contain all the terms of the contract; that the exchange was made, but…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Fullee
■ This case was brought directly to this court on a certificate of jurisdiction under section five of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, and. might, therefore, have been advanced under Rule 32. The motions to dismiss or affirm may be treated as equivalent to submission under that rule, but as the motions were made, and the motion to dismiss was chiefly rested on the ground that the value of the matter in dispute was not sufficient to give this-court jurisdiction, we think it proper to say that “ the act of 1891 nowhere imposes a pecuniary limit upon the appellate jurisdiction, either of this…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- The Paquete HabanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Shappirio v. GoldbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Clarke v. MathewsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Morgan's Heirs v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
- Kanouse v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Pipeliners Local Union No. 798, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and A. Leroy Jones v. Fred H. EllerdCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1974
- Murphy v. KodzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
- Grant County Deposit Bank v. McCampbellCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1952
- IMFC Professional Services of Florida, Inc. v. Latin American Home Health, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.