TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sillix v. Bagby

Martin Sillix v. Mrs. W. D. Bagby

Sillix v. Bagby, 53 Kan. 245 (1894)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1894
Judges
Allen
Citations
53 Kan. 245
Headnotes
Appellate Jueisdiotion — Case, Dismissed. The amount in controversy in the district court being less than $ 100, and the case not falling within any exception contained in ¶ 4612 of the General Statutes of 1889, the case is dismissed, on the authority of Richmond v. Brum-mie, 52 Kas. 247.
Summary
Error from Franklin District Court. The opinion states the case.

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

Opinion of the Court — Allen

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by AlleN, J.:

This action originated before a justice of the peace, and was brought by Martin Sillix against Mrs. W. D. Bagby, to recover the possession of certain personal property, of the alleged value of $100. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for possession of the property, or the value of his interest therein, amounting to $88.68. From this judgment, W. D. Bagby appealed to the district court. On the trial, the record recites that the plaintiff testified in bis own behalf, and gave evidence tending to show that there was still due upon said indebtedness $88.68. The court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the possession of the property, and that the value of his possession was $7.50. The plaintiff seeks to review this judgment.

It is apparent on the. face of the record that less than $100 is involved in the controversy. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed. (Richmond v. Brummie, 52 Kas. 247 ; Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Yawger, 52 id. 691.)

All the Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

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

1912: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nuhfer v. Flanagan124 P. 418 (Kan. 1912)

Most recent

  1. Nuhfer v. Flanagan124 P. 418 (Kan. 1912)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Richmond v. Brummie, 52 Kan. 247 (1893) 11

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