Arbuckle v. Arbuckle

Supreme Court of Kansas

Arbuckle v. Arbuckle

4 P.2d 367, 134 Kan. 22, 1931 Kan. LEXIS 177

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedNovember 7, 1931

DocketNo. 29,864

StatusPublished

This text of 4 P.2d 367 (Arbuckle v. Arbuckle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arbuckle v. Arbuckle, 4 P.2d 367, 134 Kan. 22, 1931 Kan. LEXIS 177 (kan 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This is an action solely for the recovery of money and was brought in justice court, where plaintiff recovered a judgment, from which defendant appealed. In the district court plaintiff recovered judgment for $100 and costs. Defendant has appealed and complains of the service of process and of the rulings of the courts on his motions relating thereto. While we have examined [23]*23these questions enough to know that they are without substantial merit, we have no jurisdiction of the appeal. (R. S. 60-3303; Richmond v. Brummie, 52 Kan. 247, 34 Pac. 783; McClelland v. Cragun, 54 Kan. 599, 601, 38 Pac. 776.) Here the amount of the judgment, exclusive of costs, “does not exceed one hundred dollars,” and the cause of action is not within the exceptions mentioned in the statute. The amount of the judgment in the district court is the amount in controversy here.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This is an action solely for the recovery of money and was brought in justice court, where plaintiff recovered a judgment, from which defendant appealed. In the district court plaintiff recovered judgment for $100 and costs. Defendant has appealed and complains of the service of process and of the rulings of the courts on his motions relating thereto. While we have examined [23]*23these questions enough to know that they are without substantial merit, we have no jurisdiction of the appeal. (R. S. 60-3303; Richmond v. Brummie, 52 Kan. 247, 34 Pac. 783; McClelland v. Cragun, 54 Kan. 599, 601, 38 Pac. 776.) Here the amount of the judgment, exclusive of costs, “does not exceed one hundred dollars,” and the cause of action is not within the exceptions mentioned in the statute. The amount of the judgment in the district court is the amount in controversy here.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 P.2d 367, 134 Kan. 22, 1931 Kan. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arbuckle-v-arbuckle-kan-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack