Skip to content

Davis v. Davis

Davis v. Davis, 199 S.W. 1075 (Ky. Ct. App. 1918)

Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky · State Appellate Courts
Decided: January 22, 1918
Judges: Clay, Whole
Citations: 199 S.W. 1075178 Ky. 7791918 Ky. LEXIS 456

Cited by 3

Headnotes

1. Appeal and Error — Jurisdiction—Amount in Controversy.— Neither the circuit court nor the Court of Appeals can grant an appeal from a mere money judgment for less than $200 exclusive of interest and costs where neither the title to land, nor the right to an easement therein, nor the right to enforce a statutory lien thereon, is directly involved. 2. Appeal and Error — Jurisdiction—Amount in Controversy. — An appeal from a money judgment for as much as $200 but less than $500, exclusive of interest and costs, where neither the title to land, nor an easement therein, nor the right to enforce a statutory lien thereon is directly involved, can be granted only by the Court of Appeals. 3. Appeal and Error — Circuit Courts — Lack of Jurisdiction to Grant Appeal — Dismissal.—Where a circuit court is without jurisdiction to grant an appeal, the appeal will be dismissed. 4. Appeal and Error — Circuit Courts — Want of Jurisdiction to Grant Appeal — Dismissal — Cross-Appeal. — Where an appeal is dismissed because the circuit court was without jurisdiction to grant it, its dismissal will carry with it the dismissal of the cross-appeal.

Summary

Appeal from Pike 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 — Clay

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

Opinion op the Court by William Rogers Clay, Commissioner

Dismissing appeal.

Mary Williams DaVis and her husband, John B. Davis, had five children, W. Y. Davis, Clell Davis, Jim Davis, H. R. Davis and Hester Davis. In the year 1915, Mary Davis was the owner of a tract of land in Pike county which she on November 5th of that year conveyed to her three children, Jim Davis, H. R. Davis and Hester Davis, by separate deeds in which her husband did not unite. After the death of Mary Davis, her two sons, W. Y. Davis and Clell Davis, and her husband, John B. Davis, brought this suit to cancel the deeds to Jim Davis, H. R. Davis and Hester Davis, and for a sale of the land and a division of the proceeds. The defendants, Jim Davis, H. R. Davis and Hester Davis, denied the allegations of the petition and asserted a counter-claim for $900.00 each for money furnished to pay for the land and *780 for services rendered in taking care of their mother, pursuant to a contract between them and her. On final hearing the three deeds were canceled and defendants allowed on their counter-claims the /following sums: Jim Davis $197.50, H. R. Davis, $296.26, and Hester Davis $420.00. Prom this judgment plaintiffs prosecute an appeal, which was granted by the court below, and defendants prosecute a cross-appeal.

Since plaintiffs obtained a cancellation of the deeds, the original appeal is not from a judgment in which the title to land, nor the right to an easement therein, nor the right to enforce a statutory lien thereon is directly involved. So far as plaintiffs are concerned, the appeal is from three separate money judgments in favor of three different parties, one of which is less than $200.00 and the other two are over $200.00 but less than $500.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Neither the circuit court nor this court has the power to grant an appeal from a money judgment for less than $200.00 exclusive of interest and cost, and .an appeal from a money judgment for as much as $200.00 exclusive of interest and costs, but less than $300.00, can be granted only by this court. Kentucky Statutes, section 950; Childers et al. v. Ratcliff, et al., 164 Ky. 123 , 175 S. W. 25 ; Gering v. Hoke, et al., 164 Ky. 722 , 176 S. W. 210 . Since the circuit court was without jurisdiction to grant the appeal, the appeal will be dismissed, •and the dismissal of the appeal under the circumstances here presented, will carry with it the dismissal of the cross-appeal.

Appeal dismissed ¡Whole court sitting.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Gilmore and Helm v. Brown284 S.W. 1017 (Ky. Ct. App. 1926)
City of Covington v. Crolley206 S.W.2d 933 (Ky. Ct. App. 1947)
Phelps v. Johnson207 S.W. 453 (Ky. Ct. App. 1919)

Most recent

City of Covington v. Crolley206 S.W.2d 933 (Ky. Ct. App. 1947)
Gilmore and Helm v. Brown284 S.W. 1017 (Ky. Ct. App. 1926)
Phelps v. Johnson207 S.W. 453 (Ky. Ct. App. 1919)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Childers v. Ratliff, 175 S.W. 25 (Ky. Ct. App. 1915)	39
	Gering v. Hoke, 176 S.W. 210 (Ky. Ct. App. 1915)	6