Nash v. Beckman

• Decision Date: 12 October 1892
• Citation: 86 Iowa 249,53 N.W. 228
• Parties: NASH v. BECKMAN ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

86 Iowa 249

53 N.W. 228

NASH

v.BECKMAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 12, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Palo Alto county; GEORGE H. CARR, Judge.

Action to recover the purchase price of two harrows and “extra parts” thereof, sold by plaintiff to defendants, of the value of $37.50. Defendants, answering, presented a counterclaim for a breach of the conditions of the sale, and claimed damages in the sum of $100 and interest. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and from a judgment thereon the defendants appealed.B. E. Kelley, for appellants.

Soper, Allen & Morling, for appellee.

GRANGER, J.

There is no certificate of the district court as is required to give this court jurisdiction where the amount in controversy, as shown by the pleadings, is less than $100, because of which appellee moves to dismiss the appeal. It is the amount of the counterclaim that is to control in this respect. The allegations of the answer in support of the counterclaim are to the effect that the harrows were warranted to the defendants to be well made, of good material, to do good work, etc., and were purchased by defendants for sale to other parties. The answer states that the harrows were sold to other parties; “that the same proved to be not well made, of poor material, and became broken, and could not be used for the purpose for which they were purchased. * * * The said harrows would not work, and the same proved of worthless, inferior, and breakable material and construction, and the said harrows broke to pieces, and proved worthless, and of no value whatever; and the said purchasers returned the same to defendants, and refused to longer keep or retain the same, and refused to pay or settle for the same; that thereupon defendants notified the plaintiff of their being worthless, and offered to return the same to plaintiff, but plaintiff refused to receive the same; that by reason of the above facts, and by reason of the breach of said warranty, * * * defendants have suffered damages in the sum of $100.”

It is not the prayer, but the facts alleged in the pleadings, from which the amount in controversy is to be ascertained. Cooper v. Dillon, 56 Iowa, 368, 9 N. W. Rep. 302. Under the allegations of the counterclaim, there could have been no greater recovery than the value of the harrows and extras. There are no facts pleaded showing damage beyond the loss of the machines, because valueless. Their value, then, limited the amount that could...