Stevers v. Gunz

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Stevers v. Gunz

23 Minn. 520, 1877 Minn. LEXIS 60

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 16, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 Minn. 520 (Stevers v. Gunz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stevers v. Gunz, 23 Minn. 520, 1877 Minn. LEXIS 60 (Mich. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Gtlfillan, C. J.

This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace to recover the possession of a horse, the value of which is alleged in the complaint at $100, and to recover damages for the detention thereof, alleged in the complaint at $75. Judgment was rendered by the justice in favor of the plaintiff, for the possession of the property and for $75 damages, and the defendants appealed to the district court. Unquestionably, the justice had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action. That subject, as presented by the complaint, was plaintiff’s claim to recover a horse worth $100, and $75 for damages. The amount in controversy was the value of the horse and the damages claimed, .and the justice could not, under the constitution, have jurisdiction of the cause. Hecklin v. Ess, 16 Minn. 51, is not in point, for in that case the court, in effect, held only that by the pleadings it appeared that the amount did not exceed the limit of jurisdiction, and that the verdict and evidence as to the value of that part of the property which had been ■delivered on the writ to the plaintiff, being, as the case was decided in his favor, immaterial, it was not to be taken as .showing such value for the purpose of testing the jurisdiction.

Order reversed.

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

Gtlfillan, C. J.

This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace to recover the possession of a horse, the value of which is alleged in the complaint at $100, and to recover damages for the detention thereof, alleged in the complaint at $75. Judgment was rendered by the justice in favor of the plaintiff, for the possession of the property and for $75 damages, and the defendants appealed to the district court. Unquestionably, the justice had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action. That subject, as presented by the complaint, was plaintiff’s claim to recover a horse worth $100, and $75 for damages. The amount in controversy was the value of the horse and the damages claimed, .and the justice could not, under the constitution, have jurisdiction of the cause. Hecklin v. Ess, 16 Minn. 51, is not in point, for in that case the court, in effect, held only that by the pleadings it appeared that the amount did not exceed the limit of jurisdiction, and that the verdict and evidence as to the value of that part of the property which had been ■delivered on the writ to the plaintiff, being, as the case was decided in his favor, immaterial, it was not to be taken as .showing such value for the purpose of testing the jurisdiction.

Order reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Minn. 520, 1877 Minn. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevers-v-gunz-minn-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack