Burk Hollow Coal Co. v. Lawson

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Burk Hollow Coal Co. v. Lawson

169 S.W. 695, 160 Ky. 209, 1914 Ky. LEXIS 427

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

DecidedOctober 13, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 S.W. 695 (Burk Hollow Coal Co. v. Lawson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burk Hollow Coal Co. v. Lawson, 169 S.W. 695, 160 Ky. 209, 1914 Ky. LEXIS 427 (Ky. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Chief Justice Hobson

Dismissing Appeal.

' James Lawson brought this suit against the Burk Hollow Coal Company to recover for coal which it had mined from his land without his consent. On the first [210]*210trial of the ■ case he recovered a judgment for $200, and on appeal to this court the judgment was reversed and a new trial directed. (See Burk Hollow Coal Co. v. Lawson, 151 Ky., 305.) On the return of the case he filed an amended petition in which he described his tract of land from which he alleged the coal had been taken. The defendant filed an amended answer in which it denied the allegations of the petition and pleaded in the second paragraph that the coal in controversy had been mined not by it, but by its predecessor in business, a partnership which'the corporation had succeeded. The defendant filed a reply in which he alleged that the defendant had promised and agreed to pay him for the coal which it had mined from his lands as alleged in the petition. Thereupon the defendant entered a motion that the plaintiff be required to elect whether he would sue in tort or upon the contract. The court sustained the motion, and the plaintiff elected to sue on the contract. The case was thereupon submitted to a jury, who, after hearing the evidence, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $108. The court having entered judgment upon the verdict, and refused a new trial, the defendant appeals. The plaintiff has entered a motion-to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy is less than $200.

No question of title to land is involved. The plaintiff’s title to the tract of land described in Ms amended petition is conceded. The cause of action sued on is the alleged contract to pay for the coal which had been mined on the plaintiff’s land, and the sum recovered being less than $200, this court is without jurisdiction. (Cook v. Rockhouse Realty Co., 159 Ky., 710.)

Appeal dismissed.

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

Opinion op the Court by

Chief Justice Hobson

Dismissing Appeal.

' James Lawson brought this suit against the Burk Hollow Coal Company to recover for coal which it had mined from his land without his consent. On the first [210]*210trial of the ■ case he recovered a judgment for $200, and on appeal to this court the judgment was reversed and a new trial directed. (See Burk Hollow Coal Co. v. Lawson, 151 Ky., 305.) On the return of the case he filed an amended petition in which he described his tract of land from which he alleged the coal had been taken. The defendant filed an amended answer in which it denied the allegations of the petition and pleaded in the second paragraph that the coal in controversy had been mined not by it, but by its predecessor in business, a partnership which'the corporation had succeeded. The defendant filed a reply in which he alleged that the defendant had promised and agreed to pay him for the coal which it had mined from his lands as alleged in the petition. Thereupon the defendant entered a motion that the plaintiff be required to elect whether he would sue in tort or upon the contract. The court sustained the motion, and the plaintiff elected to sue on the contract. The case was thereupon submitted to a jury, who, after hearing the evidence, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $108. The court having entered judgment upon the verdict, and refused a new trial, the defendant appeals. The plaintiff has entered a motion-to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, as the amount in controversy is less than $200.

No question of title to land is involved. The plaintiff’s title to the tract of land described in Ms amended petition is conceded. The cause of action sued on is the alleged contract to pay for the coal which had been mined on the plaintiff’s land, and the sum recovered being less than $200, this court is without jurisdiction. (Cook v. Rockhouse Realty Co., 159 Ky., 710.)

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.W. 695, 160 Ky. 209, 1914 Ky. LEXIS 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burk-hollow-coal-co-v-lawson-kyctapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack