Cooper v. Dillon

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtROTHROCK
Citation9 N.W. 302,56 Iowa 367
Decision Date15 June 1881
PartiesCOOPER v. DILLON AND ANOTHER.

56 Iowa 367
9 N.W. 302

COOPER
v.
DILLON AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed June 15, 1881.


Appeal from Hardin circuit court.

This is an action involving the obligation of the defendants to erect and maintain a partition fence on the line between lands owned by the respective parties. It appears that a controversy having arisen as to the obligation to erect the fence, the plaintiff applied to the township trustees, who met and determined that the fence should be built, and assigned to each party his portion thereof, and fixed a time within which the same should be erected. The defendants neglected to build the portion assigned to them, and, after the time fixed by the trustees, the plaintiff proceeded to erect and did erect the same. The trustees were thereupon called to assess the value of the defendants' portion of said fence so erected by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff claims judgment for double the value of the fence as fixed by the trustees, and the fees of the trustees. There was a trial by the court, which resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

[9 N.W. 302]

E. W. Eastman, for appellants.

S. M. Weaver, for appellee.


ROTHROCK, J.

Counsel for appellee claims that this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal, because the amount in controversy, as shown by the

[9 N.W. 303]

pleadings, does not exceed $100 and there is no certificate of the trial judge as required by section 3173 of the Code. No cross-claim was filed by the defendants, and the amount in controversy, as shown upon the face of the petition, must determine the question. It appears from the petition that the trustees assessed the value of the fence in controversy at $40, and that their fees amounted to $8, The prayer of the petition is as follows: “Plaintiff therefore demands judgment against defendants in twice the amount of the value of said fence and fees of said trustees as shown by said certificate, in all $110, and for costs.” It is doubtful whether under this prayer plaintiff intended to include double the amount of the fees. But whether he did or not, he was at the most entitled to recover but $96, and the amount of his recovery must be fixed by the allegations of his petition rather than by the prayer thereof. If the defendants had made default he could not have recovered $100. Counsel for appellant claims that plaintiff was entitled to 1 per cent. a month on the amount found by the trustees, under section 1491 of the Code, and that this would make...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Bacon v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 22, 1912
    ...right of appeal. Hiatt v. Nelson, 100 Iowa, 750, 69 N. W. 553;Nash v. Beckman, 86 Iowa, 249, 53 N. W. 228;Cooper v. Dillon, 56 Iowa, 367, 9 N. W. 302. “In all actions sounding in damages the plaintiff is limited to his demand therefor in his declaration or complaint, and can recover no more......
  • Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Weaver
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 10, 1900
    ...be determined by the facts alleged in the pleading, and not by the prayer for judgment, is well settled. Cooper v. Dillon, 56 Iowa, 367, 9 N. W. 302;Nash v. Beckman, 86 Iowa, 249, 53 N. W. 228;Schultz v. Holbrook, 86 Iowa, 569, 53 N. W. 285. While nicety of pleading is not required before a......
  • Thompson v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 22, 1895
    ...the amount in controversy; that question is settled by the body or charging part of the pleading. Cooper v. Dillon, 56 Iowa, 368, 9 N. W. 302. If by the pleadings, and consistently therewith, a judgment might have been recovered for more than $100, the case is appealable, with the certifica......
  • Inc. Town of Central City v. Treat
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 2, 1897
    ...in controversy is not to be determined by the demand for judgment, but by the averments of the pleadings. Cooper v. Dillon, 56 Iowa, 367, 9 N. W. 302. Examining the petition in this case, we find that the only interest which the plaintiff has in the subject-matter of the controversy is the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Bacon v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 22, 1912
    ...right of appeal. Hiatt v. Nelson, 100 Iowa, 750, 69 N. W. 553;Nash v. Beckman, 86 Iowa, 249, 53 N. W. 228;Cooper v. Dillon, 56 Iowa, 367, 9 N. W. 302. “In all actions sounding in damages the plaintiff is limited to his demand therefor in his declaration or complaint, and can recover no more......
  • Thompson v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 22, 1895
    ...the amount in controversy; that question is settled by the body or charging part of the pleading. Cooper v. Dillon, 56 Iowa, 368, 9 N. W. 302. If by the pleadings, and consistently therewith, a judgment might have been recovered for more than $100, the case is appealable, with the certifica......
  • Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Weaver
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 10, 1900
    ...be determined by the facts alleged in the pleading, and not by the prayer for judgment, is well settled. Cooper v. Dillon, 56 Iowa, 367, 9 N. W. 302;Nash v. Beckman, 86 Iowa, 249, 53 N. W. 228;Schultz v. Holbrook, 86 Iowa, 569, 53 N. W. 285. While nicety of pleading is not required before a......
  • Inc. Town of Central City v. Treat
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 2, 1897
    ...in controversy is not to be determined by the demand for judgment, but by the averments of the pleadings. Cooper v. Dillon, 56 Iowa, 367, 9 N. W. 302. Examining the petition in this case, we find that the only interest which the plaintiff has in the subject-matter of the controversy is the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT