Denny v. Russell

Supreme Court of Kansas

Denny v. Russell

189 P. 136, 106 Kan. 573, 1920 Kan. LEXIS 606

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 10, 1920

DocketNo. 22,404

StatusPublished

This text of 189 P. 136 (Denny v. Russell) 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

Denny v. Russell, 189 P. 136, 106 Kan. 573, 1920 Kan. LEXIS 606 (kan 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The appeal was taken from an order offsetting judgments. The question is whether or not the amount in controversy is sufficient to give this court jurisdiction.

On February 12 Denny obtained judgment against Russell for the sum of $94, with interest at six per cent, and for costs. On February 21 Carver, attorney for Denny, perfected an attorney’s lien on the amount recovered to the extent of fifty per cent of it. On March 21 Carver took an assignment of the judgment for $94. Afterwards Russell procured judgment against Denny for the sum of $100, with interest at eight per cent, and for costs. Russell moved that the judgments be offset, and Carver intervened.

Carver’s notice of lien limited his lien to fifty per cent of the amount recovered on the cause of action set forth in Denny’s petition. The assignment to Carver specified the face of the judgment, $94. Interest on this sum to the time the judgments were offset would not bring the amount up to $100. So far as Carver is concerned, the amount in controversy is the amount he lost (Shannon v. Abrams, 98 Kan. 26, 31, 157 Pac. 449). Consequently, the court is without jurisdiction to hear Carver’s appeal (Civ. Code, § 566, Gen. Stat. 1915, § 7470). Denny has no interest in the face of the judgment, having assigned to Carver, and his judgment for costs against Russell amounts to only $34.

The appeal is 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

Burch, J.:

The appeal was taken from an order offsetting judgments. The question is whether or not the amount in controversy is sufficient to give this court jurisdiction.

On February 12 Denny obtained judgment against Russell for the sum of $94, with interest at six per cent, and for costs. On February 21 Carver, attorney for Denny, perfected an attorney’s lien on the amount recovered to the extent of fifty per cent of it. On March 21 Carver took an assignment of the judgment for $94. Afterwards Russell procured judgment against Denny for the sum of $100, with interest at eight per cent, and for costs. Russell moved that the judgments be offset, and Carver intervened.

Carver’s notice of lien limited his lien to fifty per cent of the amount recovered on the cause of action set forth in Denny’s petition. The assignment to Carver specified the face of the judgment, $94. Interest on this sum to the time the judgments were offset would not bring the amount up to $100. So far as Carver is concerned, the amount in controversy is the amount he lost (Shannon v. Abrams, 98 Kan. 26, 31, 157 Pac. 449). Consequently, the court is without jurisdiction to hear Carver’s appeal (Civ. Code, § 566, Gen. Stat. 1915, § 7470). Denny has no interest in the face of the judgment, having assigned to Carver, and his judgment for costs against Russell amounts to only $34.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 P. 136, 106 Kan. 573, 1920 Kan. LEXIS 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denny-v-russell-kan-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack