City of Toledo v. Buechell

Ohio Supreme Court

City of Toledo v. Buechell

64 Ohio St. (N.S.) 389

DecidedMarch 26, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 64 Ohio St. (N.S.) 389 (City of Toledo v. Buechell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Toledo v. Buechell, 64 Ohio St. (N.S.) 389 (Ohio 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

It will be observed that section 6710, Revised-Statutes, conferring appellate jurisdiction on this court, as amended April, 25,1898 (93 Laws, 255), with certain exceptions, limits its jurisdiction to the review of a judgment in which is involved a sum or value [390]*390greater than $300, exclusive of interest and costs. This exclusion, however, as we construe the statute, relates to the interest that may have accrued on the judgment since, and not to any sum that may have been included in the judgment when rendered. Thu latter is merged in and becomes a part of the principal for which the judgment is rendered, and this amount determines the jurisdiction of the court. In this case the amount claimed on account of the alleged illegal exactions was $294.50, which, with interest to the time of the rendition of the judgment, amounted to $332, and for which judgment was rendered. The amount then involved in the judgment sought to be reviewed is greater than $300.

Motion overruled.

Shauck, Davis, Spear, Burket .and Williams, JJ., concur.

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

By the Court:

It will be observed that section 6710, Revised-Statutes, conferring appellate jurisdiction on this court, as amended April, 25,1898 (93 Laws, 255), with certain exceptions, limits its jurisdiction to the review of a judgment in which is involved a sum or value [390]*390greater than $300, exclusive of interest and costs. This exclusion, however, as we construe the statute, relates to the interest that may have accrued on the judgment since, and not to any sum that may have been included in the judgment when rendered. Thu latter is merged in and becomes a part of the principal for which the judgment is rendered, and this amount determines the jurisdiction of the court. In this case the amount claimed on account of the alleged illegal exactions was $294.50, which, with interest to the time of the rendition of the judgment, amounted to $332, and for which judgment was rendered. The amount then involved in the judgment sought to be reviewed is greater than $300.

Motion overruled.

Shauck, Davis, Spear, Burket .and Williams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Ohio St. (N.S.) 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-toledo-v-buechell-ohio-1901.