Scheiber v. United Telephone Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Scheiber v. United Telephone Co.

55 N.E. 32, 23 Ind. App. 702, 1899 Ind. App. LEXIS 94

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 1899

DocketNo. 2,872

StatusPublished

This text of 55 N.E. 32 (Scheiber v. United Telephone Co.) 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

Scheiber v. United Telephone Co., 55 N.E. 32, 23 Ind. App. 702, 1899 Ind. App. LEXIS 94 (Ind. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Wiley, J. —

Appellant sued appellee to recover damages for an injury received by a bolt or current of lightning inducted into his office by an alleged defective telephone wire placed and left there by appellee. The complaint is in three paragraphs, and in each of them appellant demands judgment in the sum of §5,000. To each paragraph of complaint appellee addressed a demurrer, which was sustained, and appellant refusing to plead further or amend, judgment was rendered against him for costs. This is therefore an action seeking the recovery of a money judgment only, and the amount in controversy being more than §3,500, as shown by the prayer of the complaint, the jurisdiction is in the Supreme Court. This court has not jurisdiction, and the case is ordered transferred to the Supreme Court. Williams v. Citizens, etc., Co., 153 Ind. 496.

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

Wiley, J. —

Appellant sued appellee to recover damages for an injury received by a bolt or current of lightning inducted into his office by an alleged defective telephone wire placed and left there by appellee. The complaint is in three paragraphs, and in each of them appellant demands judgment in the sum of §5,000. To each paragraph of complaint appellee addressed a demurrer, which was sustained, and appellant refusing to plead further or amend, judgment was rendered against him for costs. This is therefore an action seeking the recovery of a money judgment only, and the amount in controversy being more than §3,500, as shown by the prayer of the complaint, the jurisdiction is in the Supreme Court. This court has not jurisdiction, and the case is ordered transferred to the Supreme Court. Williams v. Citizens, etc., Co., 153 Ind. 496.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 N.E. 32, 23 Ind. App. 702, 1899 Ind. App. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scheiber-v-united-telephone-co-indctapp-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack