Pullen v. Edwards

Indiana Court of Appeals

Pullen v. Edwards

47 N.E. 26, 22 Ind. App. 647, 1897 Ind. App. LEXIS 60

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 1897

DocketNo. 2,175

StatusPublished

This text of 47 N.E. 26 (Pullen v. Edwards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pullen v. Edwards, 47 N.E. 26, 22 Ind. App. 647, 1897 Ind. App. LEXIS 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Henley, J.

— The appellees were the plaintiffs below, and while demanding damages in their complaint, they also asked that the court declare appellants’ place and business, as conducted, a nuisance; and that'they be perpetually enjoined from continuing and maintaining such business. There was a trial by the court, and judgment for appellees in the sum of $250. The prayer of the appellees for an injunction was granted, and appellants were enjoined from maintaining, or permitting to be maintained, the business in which they were engaged as described in appellees’ complaint. Prom this judgment the appeal is taken.

Under the third specification of section one; of the act of 1891, creating the Appellate Court (section 1336 Bums 1894) it is provided that this court shall have jurisdiction in “all actions seeking the recovery of a^ money judgment only when the amount in controversy exclusive of costs does not exceed thirty-five hundred dollars.” This action does not seek to recover a money judgment only, and, in fact, it appears that the principal object appellees desired to accomplish was to suppress and blot out, by means of an injunction, the nuisance described in the complaint. In actions where relief is demanded by way of injunction, this court has no jurisdiction. It follows that this cause must be certified to the Supreme Court, and the same is hereby ordered.

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

Henley, J.

— The appellees were the plaintiffs below, and while demanding damages in their complaint, they also asked that the court declare appellants’ place and business, as conducted, a nuisance; and that'they be perpetually enjoined from continuing and maintaining such business. There was a trial by the court, and judgment for appellees in the sum of $250. The prayer of the appellees for an injunction was granted, and appellants were enjoined from maintaining, or permitting to be maintained, the business in which they were engaged as described in appellees’ complaint. Prom this judgment the appeal is taken.

Under the third specification of section one; of the act of 1891, creating the Appellate Court (section 1336 Bums 1894) it is provided that this court shall have jurisdiction in “all actions seeking the recovery of a^ money judgment only when the amount in controversy exclusive of costs does not exceed thirty-five hundred dollars.” This action does not seek to recover a money judgment only, and, in fact, it appears that the principal object appellees desired to accomplish was to suppress and blot out, by means of an injunction, the nuisance described in the complaint. In actions where relief is demanded by way of injunction, this court has no jurisdiction. It follows that this cause must be certified to the Supreme Court, and the same is hereby ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 N.E. 26, 22 Ind. App. 647, 1897 Ind. App. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullen-v-edwards-indctapp-1897.