TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Biddle v. Pierce

Biddle v. Pierce, 40 N.E. 668 (Ind. 1895)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 2, 1895
Docket
No. 17,359
Judges
Monks
Citations
40 N.E. 668141 Ind. 1481895 Ind. LEXIS 259
Headnotes
Appellate Court. — Jurisdiction.—Money Demand. — Amount in Controversy. — Where the amount of appellant’s (plaintiff’s) demand was $1,750 and the amount recovered was $118.48, the amount in controversy on appeal is the difference between $1,750 and $118.48, and the jurisdiction is in the Appellate Court.
Summary
From the Montgomery Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Monks

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Monks, J.

Appellant and appellees, except Crane & Anderson, compromised an action in which they were plaintiffs, and Crane & Anderson, as their attorneys, received the sum of $7,000 in settlement of said action. There was a dispute between said plaintiffs as to how much of said sum each should receive. Appellant brought this action to recover $1,750, one-fourth of said sum of $7,000. Answers were filed by appellees and also a cross-complaint by three of appellees, in which they demanded $7,000. Answers were filed to the cross-complaint, the cause was tried by the court and a special finding made and conclusions of law stated in favor of appellant for $118.48, and in favor of each of appellees for amounts, none of which exceeded the sum of $2,116.48.

Judgment was rendered, over appellant’s motion for a new trial, on the special finding.

Appellant, at the proper time, excepted to the conclusions of law. No cross-errors are assigned. The action by appellant was for money only within the meaning of section 1336, R. S. 1894, acts 1891, p. 29, defining the *149 jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. The amount in controversy, on appeal, is the difference between the amount demanded, $1,750, and the amount of appellant’s recovery of $118.48, which is less than $3,500.

Filed May 2, 1895.

The jurisdiction is therefore in the Appellate Court. This cause is transferred to the Appellate Court.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list