Johnson v. Bd. of Com'rs of Randolph Cnty.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1894
• Citation: Johnson v. Bd. of Com'rs of Randolph Cnty., 140 Ind. 152, 39 N.E. 311 (Ind. 1894)
• Parties: JOHNSON v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF RANDOLPH COUNTY.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

140 Ind. 152

39 N.E. 311

JOHNSON

v.BOARD OF COM'RS OF RANDOLPH COUNTY.¹

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 11, 1894.

Appeal from circuit court, Randolph county; L. J. Monks, Judge.

Action by Isaac V. D. R. Johnson against the board of commissioners of Randolph county for money claimed under contract.From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

Watson, Macy & Goodrich, for appellant.Marsh & Thompson, for appellee.

McCABE, J.

This suit was begun by filing a claim against the county of Randolph, before the board of commissioners of that county, by the appellant, for a money demand on the contract of said board with another, $4,310.19 of which had been assigned by that person to the appellant.On the hearing before the board there was allowed to appellant on said claim $2,243.53, and the balance thereof was disallowed, to wit, $2,066.66.The appellant, being dissatisfied with such allowance in his favor, appealed to the circuit court.In that courtthe appellee filed three paragraphs of an answer of set-off, to which demurrers for insufficiency of facts were overruled.Upon the issues formed there was a trial by the court without a jury, resulting in a finding and judgment for appellant, over his motion for a new trial, for $2,243.53.Appellant, being again dissatisfied with the amount of his recovery, prosecutes this appeal.

We are thus confronted with the question of the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this appeal.All actions seeking the recovery of a money judgment only, where the amount in controversy, exclusive of costs, does not exceed $3.500, on appeal, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the appellate court.Burns'Rev. St. 1894, § 1336;Acts 1893, p. 29.What is meant by “the amount in controversy” is the amount in controversy, or actually in dispute, in the court to which the appeal is taken, and not the amount in controversy in the trial court, where the amount in controversy in the two courts is not the same.It has been held by this court that where a plaintiff recovers in the trial court a judgment for a part only of his claim, and is dissatisfied therewith, and appeals to this court, the amount in controversy on such appeal is the amount of the difference between his judgment and his claim, or the amount of the excess of his claim over the amount of his judgment.Reed v. Sering, 7 Blackf. 135.The exact same rule prevails on appeals to the supreme court of the United States under statutes very much like ours.Carne v. Russ, 152 U. S. 251, 14 Sup. Ct. 578;Tintsman v. Bank, 100 U. S. 6.The amount therefore in controversy on this appeal is the difference between appellant's claim and the judgment he recovered in the circuit court, and that is only $2,066.66, which would exclude the jurisdiction of this court, unless the case is brought within some exception to that rule.Subdivision 1 of the exceptions to section 1336, supra, provides that: “The appellate court shall not have jurisdiction where the constitutionality of a statute federal or state * * * is in question and such question is duly presented.”

Some troublesome questions have been eliminated from the case by the following written agreement between the parties, read in evidence on the trial: “It is agreed by and between plaintiff and defendant, as a part of the facts in this case: First.That the monument in question, mentioned in the plaintiff's claim, was, prior to the filing of the claim by the plaintiff herein, completed according to the contract, and accepted by the defendant, the board of commissioners of the county of Randolph; and that the amount of $4,310.19, with interest from the date of filing, April 11, 1892, was and still is due the plaintiff, as assignee of A. A. McKain, upon said contract, less any sum that may be due to the defendant on its set-off filed in this case.Second.That the amount in controversy, and claimed by the defendant to be due upon its set-off, is $2,000, for which the plaintiff claims credit by reason of an act of the legislature approved March 5, 1891, for his relief.Third.That there is due to the defendant from the plaintiff upon the set-off filed in this case the sum of $2,000, with 6% interest thereon from the 8th day of September, 1891; and the defendant has a right to recover said sum, and have the same deducted from the amount due the plaintiff upon his claim and complaint herein, unless the said act of the legislature of the state of Indiana, approved March 5, 1891, for the relief of the plaintiff, has the effect of relieving him from the payment of said sum, and preventing the defendant from recovering the same.Fourth.It is further agreed that in the event the court finds the act of the legislature referred to invalid, that the amount due the plaintiff in this case is $2,243.53.”The act of the legislature referred to has a...