Madison v. Spitsnogle
| Decision Date | 24 April 1882 |
| Citation | 12 N.W. 317,58 Iowa 369 |
| Parties | MADISON v. SPITSNOGLE ET AL |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Louisa Circuit Court.
AT a former term the appeal was dismissed on the ground the amount in controversy was less than one hundred dollars, and there was no certificate of the trial judge that there were questions of law involved, as to which the opinion of the Supreme Court was desired. Subsequently, the appellant filed a motion to set aside such order on the ground there was more than one hundred dollars in controversy, and therefore no certificate was required in order to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction.
Motion to set aside the judgment of affirmance OVERRULED.
T. B Snyder, for the motion.
The action was commenced before a justice of the peace on a contract in writing, whereby the defendant, L. D. Spitsnogle obligated himself to pay the plaintiff sixty dollars, if by the use of certain medicines, to be furnished by the plaintiff, the defendant was cured of a certain disease with which he was afflicted. It was averred the plaintiff had fully performed the contract on his part, and he sought to recover sixty dollars. The defendant denied performance of the contract by the plaintiff, and, by way of counter-claim he set up he was treated in an unskillful and negligent manner, whereby his health was injured and he suffered loss of time, whereby he was greatly damaged, and he sought to recover fifty dollars. There was a reply denying the allegations of the counter-claim. On the trial in the Circuit Court judgment was rendered for the defendants for twenty-five dollars.
The question to be determined is, whether the amount in controversy was more than one hundred dollars. In a certain sense there was. That is, by combining the claims of both parties there was one hundred and ten dollars in controversy. But both parties do not invoke the jurisdiction of this court, and we think the true construction of the statute is that it must appear from the pleadings that it was possible for the justice, consistent with the pleadings, to render judgment against one of the parties to the action for more than one hundred dollars. It is certain this could not have been done. There is no difference between the amount in controversy in an action, and the same thing when shown by the pleadings. In the latter case, the allegations of the pleadings is the test by which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial