Orchard v. Kirk

Supreme Court of Iowa

Orchard v. Kirk

136 N.W. 666, 156 Iowa 374

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedJune 10, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 136 N.W. 666 (Orchard v. Kirk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Orchard v. Kirk, 136 N.W. 666, 156 Iowa 374 (iowa 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, J.

Plaintiff, appellee'has filed a motion to [375]*375dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, and such motion has been submitted with the case. We'pass to its first consideration.

The action was begun in justice court by service of original notice wherein the amount claimed was $99.99. On the return day a petition was filed in the prayer of which plaintiff asked “judgment against the defendants in the suni of $99.99, with six percent interest and for.the cost of the action,” Thereupon, on the same day, judgment was entered by default against the defendants for $99.99 and costs. From this judgment the defendants, appellants herein, appealed to the district court, where the ease was regularly tried de novo to a jury, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff. It" is the contention of appellee that the case involves less than $100 as shown by the pleadings. No. certificate of appeal was granted by the trial court. The appellant contends that the prayer of the petition in the justice court was sufficient to carry the amount prayed above $100, and that, therefore, more than $100 was involved in the case as shown by the pleadings.

The trouble with this position of appellant is that it is just as fatal to him as is the position of the appellee. The jurisdiction of the justice court to render the judgment which it did. was necessarily predicated upon the theory that not more than $100 was prayed. If, therefore, "there was jurisdiction in the justice court on that theory, there could be no jurisdiction here. Griggs v. Norman, 155 Iowa, 132.

On the other hand, if the amount prayed in justice court should be deemed as in excess of $100, then the justice had no jurisdiction. If the justice had no jurisdiction, there could be none in the appellate court. For the purpose of this motion, therefore, it matters little upon which horn the appellant is impaled. Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction must in any event be sustained, and it is so ordered. — Appeal dismissed.

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

Evans, J.

Plaintiff, appellee'has filed a motion to [375]*375dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, and such motion has been submitted with the case. We'pass to its first consideration.

The action was begun in justice court by service of original notice wherein the amount claimed was $99.99. On the return day a petition was filed in the prayer of which plaintiff asked “judgment against the defendants in the suni of $99.99, with six percent interest and for.the cost of the action,” Thereupon, on the same day, judgment was entered by default against the defendants for $99.99 and costs. From this judgment the defendants, appellants herein, appealed to the district court, where the ease was regularly tried de novo to a jury, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff. It" is the contention of appellee that the case involves less than $100 as shown by the pleadings. No. certificate of appeal was granted by the trial court. The appellant contends that the prayer of the petition in the justice court was sufficient to carry the amount prayed above $100, and that, therefore, more than $100 was involved in the case as shown by the pleadings.

The trouble with this position of appellant is that it is just as fatal to him as is the position of the appellee. The jurisdiction of the justice court to render the judgment which it did. was necessarily predicated upon the theory that not more than $100 was prayed. If, therefore, "there was jurisdiction in the justice court on that theory, there could be no jurisdiction here. Griggs v. Norman, 155 Iowa, 132.

On the other hand, if the amount prayed in justice court should be deemed as in excess of $100, then the justice had no jurisdiction. If the justice had no jurisdiction, there could be none in the appellate court. For the purpose of this motion, therefore, it matters little upon which horn the appellant is impaled. Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction must in any event be sustained, and it is so ordered. — Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 N.W. 666, 156 Iowa 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orchard-v-kirk-iowa-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack