Biddle v. Pierce

Indiana Supreme Court

Biddle v. Pierce

40 N.E. 668, 141 Ind. 148, 1895 Ind. LEXIS 259

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 2, 1895

DocketNo. 17,359

StatusPublished

This text of 40 N.E. 668 (Biddle v. Pierce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Biddle v. Pierce, 40 N.E. 668, 141 Ind. 148, 1895 Ind. LEXIS 259 (Ind. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

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]*149jurisdiction 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.

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

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]*149jurisdiction 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 N.E. 668, 141 Ind. 148, 1895 Ind. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biddle-v-pierce-ind-1895.