[G.R. No. 686. April 26, 1915.]
EXPORT AND IMPORT LUMBER COMPANY, appelant, vs. PORT BANGA LUMBER COMPANY. 1
APPEAL; AMOUNT IN DISPUTE; COUNTERCLAIM. — The amount in dispute on an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court from the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands is less than the jurisdictional amount prescribed by the Act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat. at L., 691, Chap. 1369; Comp. Stat. 1913, section 3804), section 10, where the amount of the judgment in favor of the appellee, who has not appealed, added to the greatest sum for which the appellant could have recovered judgment against the appellee on its counterclaim, is less than such jurisdictional amount. SHaIDE
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands to review a judgment which modified, and affirmed as modified, a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the district of Zamboanga in favor of plaintiff in an action to annul a written contract and to enforce a previous oral contract between the parties. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See same case below, 26 Philippine, 602; 28 Philippine, 5.
Mr. A. D. Gibbs submitted the cause for appellant:
The amount of the counterclaim should be added to the amount of the judgment against appellant to make up the jurisdictional amount.
Block vs. Darling, 140 U.S., 234; 35 L. ed., 476; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep., 832; Harten vs. Loffler, 212 U.S., 397; 53 L. ed., 568; 29 Sup. Ct. Rep., 351; Buckstaff vs. Russell & Co., 151 U.S., 626; 38 L. ed., 292; 14 Sup. Ct. Rep., 448; Dushane vs. Benedict, 120 U.S., 630; 30 L. ed., 810; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep., 696.
Interest on the amount of the counterclaim may be added to the date of the judgment appealed from, in order to complete the jurisdictional amount.
Linsangan vs. Linsangan, 11 Philippine, 521; Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Fuentebella, 13 Philippine, 74; Massachusetts Ben. Asso. vs. Miles, 137 U.S., 689, 692; 34 L. ed., 834, 835; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep., 234; Holden vs. Freedman's Sav. & T. Co., 100 U. S., 72; 25 L. ed., 567; Ohio vs. Frank, 103 U.S., 697; 26 L. ed., 531.
There is no conflict as to the general rule that where interest antecedent to the judgment appealed from is or must be included in such judgment, and the amount, with the added interest, exceeds the necessary amount, jurisdiction will attach.
The Patapsco, 12 Wall., 451; 20 L. ed., 457; The Rio Grande, 19 Wall., 178; 22 L. ed., 60; Zeckendorf vs. Johnson, 123 U.S., 617, 618; 31 L. ed., 277; 278; 8 Sup. Ct. Rep., 261; Quebec S. S. Co. vs. Merchant, 133 U.S., 375; 33 L. ed., 656; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep., 397; Bank of United States vs. Daniel, 12 Pet., 32; 9 L. ed., 989. IcEACH
The rule that the jurisdiction of this court depends upon the amount of the judgment, exclusive of interest thereon, refers to interest accruing after the judgment appealed from, that accruing before judgment being properly included.
New York Elev. R. Co. vs. Fifth Nat. Bank, 118 U.S., 608; 30 L. ed., 259; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep., 23.
Messrs. Clement L. Bouvé and James Ross submitted the cause for appellee:
Where the jurisdiction of this court depends upon the amount in controversy, the value giving jurisdiction must be established by a preponderance of evidence.
Enriquez vs. Enriquez, 222 U.S., 123, 127; 56 L. ed., 122, 124; 32 Sup. Ct. Rep., 62.
Memorandum opinion by Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS, by direction of the court:
This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, allowed May 13, 1914. Our jurisdiction depends on the amount involved; and a motion to dismiss must be sustained unless, from a consideration of the whole record, it fairly appears that "the value in controversy exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars." (Act of July 1, 1902, chap. 1369, section 10, 32 Stat. at L., 691, 695; Comp. Stat., 1913, sections 3804, 1225.) What is actually in dispute here is the criterion. (Bowman vs. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 115 U.S., 611, 613; 29 L. ed., 502, 503; 6 Sup. Ct. Rep., 192; Martinez vs. International Bkg. Corp., 220 U.S., 214, 221; 55 L. ed., 438, 442; 31 Sup. Ct. Rep., 408.)
To avoid possible confusion their United States currency equivalents are used herein instead of the Philippine peso and centavo. cDCEIA
The Port Banga Lumber Company instituted a proceeding November 14, 1910, and afterwards filed an amended complaint, against appellant, the Export and Import Lumber Company, wherein it alleged that in March or April, 1910, the two companies entered into an oral arrangement to sell logs in the China trade upon joint account, — the proceeds to be appropriated first to expenses and then equally divided; appellant, on May 6, 1910, agreed to furnish to the China Import and Export Lumber Company logs at 90 cents per cubic foot; thereafter, falsely pretending such stipulated price was 27 1/2 cents, appellant induced complainant to consent to an annulment of the oral arrangement between them and enter into a written one, dated June 10, 1910, under which the latter agreed to supply the logs for 20 cents per cubic foot; and that at an expense of $7,211.43 it delivered 32,032 cubic feet, and appellant collected therefor 90 cents per foot, — $28,828.80. The complaint accordingly asked that the writing of June 10th be annulled; the oral contract be declared in force; and in harmony therewith, judgment for $18,020.12.
The Export and Import Lumber Company denied the allegations in the complaint, except as specifically admitted, but said the written contract of June 10th was in force and $2,500 had been paid thereunder and accepted by complainant. It further set up that by the contract of May 6th it became obligated to furnish the China Import and Export Lumber Company designated logs within a specified time; on June 10th it transferred this duty to the complainant, which failed fully to comply therewith; and as a consequence $8,750 had to be deducted from the sale price which otherwise would have been received. It therefore claimed damages to that extent and asked judgment accordingly.
Counsel admitted of record that 32,032 cubic feet of logs were delivered by complainant to the China Import and Export Lumber Company; and unquestionably appellant collected therefor 90 cents per foot, $28,828.80, less $8,750.
The court below held (26 Philippine, 602; 28 Philippine, 5) the contract of June 10th was procured by fraud; the rights of the parties depended upon the oral agreement; the deduction of $8,750 from stipulated sale price should be taken into consideration; complainant was entitled to its expenses of $7,211.43; and that the balance of amount actually collected by appellant should be equally divided. A certain credit of $450, explanation of which is now unnecessary, having been allowed, judgment was entered April 3, 1914, against appellant for $13,195.12, together with $2,683.01 interest from November 14, 1910, when the original complaint was filed, — in all $15,878.13. The Port Banga Lumber Company has not appealed, and this is the maximum recovery which appellant can suffer. SIacTE
According to appellant's theory the written contract of June 10th remained in force. A settlement thereunder would require a debit against it for logs delivered — 32,032 cubic feet at 20 cents — of $6,406.40, and necessitate credits of $2,500, alleged payment on account, and $8,750, damages sustained. The resulting balance of $4,843.60, with interest from November 14, 1910, to April 3, 1914, $984.87, or $5,828.47, is the greatest sum for which it could have recovered judgment.
The maximum amount fairly in dispute is therefore the judgment of $15,878.13 against appellant, plus $5,828.47, which it sought to recover from appellee, — a total of $21,706.60. (Dushane vs. Benedict, 120 U.S., 630, 636; 30 L. ed., 810, 811; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep., 696; Buckstaff vs. Russell & Co., 151 U.S., 626, 628; 38 L. ed., 292; 14 Sup. Ct. Rep., 448; Harten vs. Loffler, 212 U.S., 397, 403; 53 L. ed., 568, 571; 29 Sup. Ct. Rep., 351; Keller vs. Ashford, 133 U.S., 610, 617; 33 L. ed., 667, 671; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep., 494; Philippine Code Civ. Proc., section 510.)
The value in controversy being under $25,000, the appeal must be dismissed.
Dismissed.
Footnotes
1.237 U.S., 388; 59 L. ed., 1009.