Knapp v. Deyo
| Decision Date | 28 February 1888 |
| Citation | 15 N.E. 540,108 N.Y. 518 |
| Parties | KNAPP v. DEYO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from general term, supreme court, Fifth department.
Plaintiff, Rowland H. Knapp, brought action against Ira N. Deyo, defendant, on account of balance for labor. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.John Gillette
, for appellant.
O. C. Armstrong, for appellee.
The judgment in this action is not appealable to this court. The amount in controversy is less than $500. Subdivision 3, § 191, Code Civil Proc. The case does not come within the exception to the rule, as the title to real property is not affected, and no appeal to this court has been authorized by the order of the general term. The question, therefore, is to be determined solely by the amount in controversy. This is held to mean the amount in controversy before the tribunal from which the appeal is taken to this court. To determine this amount, resort may be had, not only to the pleadings, but also to the proceedings and evidence appearing in the record of the trial. King v. Galvin, 62 N. Y. 238;Roosevelt v. Linkert, 67 N. Y. 447;Brown v. Sigourney, 72 N. Y. 122. That the amount is less than $500 appears, not alone from the pleadings, but also from the evidence and offer of judgment. The complaint sets out a cause of action arising from services performed by plaintiff for defendant, during a period of about six years, as a tinsmith, aggregating the sum of $2,705.95, and admits payments thereon to the amount of $2,047. It demands judgment for the balance, being $658.95. The answer admits an indebtedness to the amount of $420, by denying that it exceeds that amount; thus leaving the matter in controversy $238.95. It appears, from an examination of the evidence and proceedings, that the issue tried was simply whether the plaintiff should be allowed payment for a period of 1,112 1/2 days at the rate of $1.50 per day or at that of $1.75. This aggregated a difference of less than $300. To this sum may be added the amount of $125, which was set up as a counter-claim by the answer, and still the amount in controversy would not reach the sum of $500. Accompanying the answer, the defendant served an offer to allow the plaintiff to take judgment for $450, which would leave the matter in dispute but little over $200. In any view, therefore, the case is not one which this court is authorized to review. The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.
All concur.
1 Affirming 38 Hun,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilbert Co. v. Husted
... ... affidavits filed in this court. Gray v. Blanchard, ... 97 U.S. 564, 24 L.Ed. 1108; Knapp v. Deyo, 108 N.Y ... 518, 15 N.E. 540 ... A ... reference to the record shows that the only evidence offered ... ...
- Brill v. Brill
-
Campbell v. Mandeville
...and materials. Such resort to the proceedings and evidence is authorized in Knapp v. Deyo, decided by this court February term, 1888. 108 N. Y. 518, 15 N. E. Rep. 540. The right of plaintiff to recover the market value for work done and material furnished by him does not seem to have been t......
-
A. Hall Terra Cotta Co. v. Doyle
...when referred to, as we have the right to do, disclose to us clearly that the amount in controversy was for less than $500. Knapp v. Deyo, 108 N. Y. 518, 15 N. E. Rep. 540. Nor was the action one which was appealable as affecting the title to real property, or an interest therein. Norris v.......