Coyle v. Capital Engineering Services, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1958 |
| Parties | Elizabeth COYLE, Guardian of Orin Howard Coyle, an Infant, Appellant, v. CAPITAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, Inc., Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Herbert D. Liebman, Frankfort, for appellant.
Henry Meigs, Frankfort, for appellee.
Elizabeth Coyle, as the guardian of Orin Howard Coyle, an infant, appeals from a judgment holding her guilty of forcible detainer. Capital Engineering Services, Inc., has moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The motion is based on a failure to show the value of the amount or thing in controversy.
G. S. Perkins, as owner of an undivided one-half interest in the premises, executed a lease to Wheeler Coyle, now deceased. Coyle was the owner of the other undivided one-half interest. Subsequently, Coyle and his wife, Elizabeth, conveyed to Perkins their interest in the property by a deed containing the following:
'It is the intention of the grantors, Wheeler Coyle and Elizabeth Coyle, his wife, to convey to G. S. Perkins by this instrument of writing all of their undivided one-half interest in and to the above described property, the said Wheeler Coyle and Elizabeth Coyle, his wife, upon the execution and delivery of this deed, to have no further right or interest in said property whatsoever.'
The Coyles were divorced at the time of his death. Orin Howard Coyle, an infant, succeeded to his father's interest. Appellee is the successor in title to Perkins.
The forcible detainer proceeding between these parties was tried in the county court and resulted in a verdict for the appellant. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was sustained and judgment was entered for appellee. Appellant filed a traverse necessitating a determination of the case in circuit court.
Appellee then filed a motion for summary judgment based on the affidavit of its attorney, setting forth that the county court judgment was determined solely on a question of law and that the sole question in the case was one of law without substantial issue of fact and was based on the effect of the deed on the lease, copies of which were attached. No evidence was heard, no exhibits or depositions were introduced, and only the counter-affidavit of appellant's counsel was offered in opposition to the motion. The motion was resisted on the theory that the language of the deed was ambiguous. The circuit court held that the prior lease 'was relinquished and terminated, * * * being merged in the * * * deed and reconveyed thereby to * * * Perkins.' The record on appeal is based on the record in the circuit court which did not include the transcript of evidence heard by the jury in the county court.
The thing in controversy in this forcible detainer proceeding is the right to enjoy the possession of certain premises. Appellant claimed an unexpired interest under a purported lease. The value of such an interest is ascertainable. Such values are frequently determined in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abell v. Meguire
...Mine Workers of America, Dist. No. 23, v. Morris, Ky., 307 S.W.2d 763; Davenport v. martin, Ky., 310 S.W.2d 775; Coyle v. Capital Engineering Services, Inc., Ky., 314 S.W.2d 541; Maslow Cooperage Corporation v. Hofgesang, Ky., 316 S.W.2d 126, 127; Knight v. Resolute Insurance Company, Ky., ......
-
Hoy v. Newburg Homes, Inc.
...so that the jurisdiction of the appellate court will be established prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. Coyle v. Capital Engineering Services, Inc., Ky., 314 S.W.2d 541. The motion to fix the value cannot be considered ancillary. This omission cannot be supplied during the pendency......
-
Pendleton v. Com. ex rel. Rawlins
...order to vest the circuit court with jurisdiction. Commonwealth ex rel. Curlin v. Taylor, Ky., 279 S.W.2d 813; Coyle v. Capital Engineering Services, Inc., Ky., 314 S.W.2d 541. Appellant failed to perfect the appeal within the time It is urged that the certification of the judgment should h......
-
Monsour v. Humphrey
...there is the requisite showing of an amount in controversy sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction. See Coyle v. Capital Engineering Services, Inc., Ky., 314 S.W.2d 541; Hoy v. Newburg Homes, Inc., Ky., 325 S.W.2d 301. However, this means only that the Court does not have jurisdiction t......