Street v. Waller

Tennessee Supreme Court

Street v. Waller

123 Tenn. 603

DecidedDecember 15, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 123 Tenn. 603 (Street v. Waller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Street v. Waller, 123 Tenn. 603 (Tenn. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Green

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A motion is made to transfer this cause to the court of civil appeals, upon the ground that the bill does not [604]*604present a case of which, this court has jurisdiction upon appeal.

Conceding this to be true, yet it appears that the answer is filed as a cross bill, and by this cross bill a direct money judgment is sought for $1590 against the complainant. An examination of the pleadings discloses that this recovery sought by the cross complainant is not merely incidental to the general relief prayed; but there is a distinct alternative prayer for such a judgment by him, and, as a matter of fact, its recovery seems to be the real object of the cross bill.

• It is immaterial, for purposes of jurisdiction, by which party a money judgment is sought. Unless such relief be a mere incident to the main case, a demand for a money judgment in a chancery cause, asserted either by the complainant, or by the defendant in a cross bill, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction of appeals in such cases upon this court, if such demand exceeds $1000.

The motion is therefore overruled, and the case remanded to the docket of this court for hearing when reached.

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

Mr. Justice Green

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A motion is made to transfer this cause to the court of civil appeals, upon the ground that the bill does not [604]*604present a case of which, this court has jurisdiction upon appeal.

Conceding this to be true, yet it appears that the answer is filed as a cross bill, and by this cross bill a direct money judgment is sought for $1590 against the complainant. An examination of the pleadings discloses that this recovery sought by the cross complainant is not merely incidental to the general relief prayed; but there is a distinct alternative prayer for such a judgment by him, and, as a matter of fact, its recovery seems to be the real object of the cross bill.

• It is immaterial, for purposes of jurisdiction, by which party a money judgment is sought. Unless such relief be a mere incident to the main case, a demand for a money judgment in a chancery cause, asserted either by the complainant, or by the defendant in a cross bill, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction of appeals in such cases upon this court, if such demand exceeds $1000.

The motion is therefore overruled, and the case remanded to the docket of this court for hearing when reached.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 Tenn. 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/street-v-waller-tenn-1910.