Helms v. Appleton
| Decision Date | 29 January 1909 |
| Docket Number | 6,413 |
| Citation | 86 N.E. 1023,43 Ind.App. 482 |
| Parties | HELMS v. APPLETON ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
43 Ind.App. 482. At 490.
Original Opinion of October 9, 1908, Reported at: 43 Ind.App. 482.
Petition for rehearing overruled.
OPINIONON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Appellant insists in his petition for rehearing that the judgment rendered in the court below must be reversed, for the reason that the action originated before a justice of the peace, and therefore the complaint could not be amended in the circuit court to increase the plaintiffs' demand beyond $ 200 and that a judgment for over that amount is void. This question was not raised in appellant's original brief, but we have given it due consideration.
The case was begun before a justice of the peace on November 16, 1905. The appellant appeared before the justice and made defense. The case was tried before the justice, and judgment rendered in appellant's favor on December 1, 1905. There was at that time due on the note, of principal and interest, $ 151.47, and whatever would be a reasonable attorneys' fee, not exceeding $ 20, the amount then demanded in the complaint. This was all that was demanded in the complaint, and it would have been the limit of the appellees' recovery had judgment been rendered in their favor at that time, and this they were then entitled to recover. The jurisdiction of the justice was fixed when the suit was begun, and by the amount then claimed. This question was decided by the Supreme Court as early as the case of Gregg v. Wooden (1856), 7 Ind. 499, where the court said with reference thereto that the statute fixing the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, so far as the amount involved is concerned, referred to the amount claimed at the time the action was commenced. The jurisdiction having once attached, will not be defeated by a defense of the cause, and the accumulation of interest pending the suit, may be recovered.
In Bargis v. Farrar (1873), 45 Ind. 41, the same rule is recognized, and a judgment rendered for over $ 200 in a case brought before a magistrate and appealed to the circuit court was affirmed, where it appeared that at the time the action was commenced before the justice the amount claimed and due was within the jurisdiction of the justice, but the accumulation of interest during the pendency of the action increased the amount to over that sum.
In the case of Stair v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chicago, I.&L. Ry. Co. v. Gorman
...N. E. 356; City, etc., Co. v. City Bond Co., 42 Ind. App. 470, 472, 84 N. E. 20;Helms v. Appleton, 43 Ind. App. 482, 489, 85 N. E. 733, 86 N. E. 1023;Parry Co. v. Heaton, 41 Ind. App. 81, 85, 83 N. E. 510;Louisville, etc., Co. v. Lloyd, 105 N. E. 519;Raymond v. Wathen, 142 Ind. 367, 41 N. E......
-
Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Woodbury Glass Co.
... ... McKinney v. State ex rel. (1888) 117 Ind. 26, 19 N. E. 613;Noyes Carriage Co. v. Robbins (1903) 31 Ind. App. 300, 67 N. E. 959;Helms v. Appleton (1908) 43 Ind. App. 482, 85 N. E. 733, 88 N. E. 1023. Appellant has also submitted a calculation by which it has attempted to show that ... ...
-
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company v. Gorman
...of Indianapolis v. City Bond Co. (1908), 42 Ind.App. 470, 472, 84 N.E. 20; Helms v. Appleton (1909), 43 Ind.App. 482, 489, 85 N.E. 733, 86 N.E. 1023; Parry Mfg. Co. v. (1908), 41 Ind.App. 81, 85, 83 N.E. 510; Louisville, etc., Traction Co. v. Lloyd (1915), ante 39, 105 N.E. 519; Raymond v. ......
-
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company v. Woodbury Glass Company
...19 N.E. 613; Noyes Carriage Co. v. Robbins (1903), 31 Ind.App. 300, 67 N.E. 959; Helms v. Appleton (1908), 43 Ind.App. 482, 85 N.E. 733, 86 N.E. 1023. Appellant also submitted a calculation by which it has attempted to show that the total amount of damages proved is less than the amount ass......