Rupel v. Ohio Oil Company
| Decision Date | 25 May 1909 |
| Docket Number | 21,329 |
| Citation | 88 N.E. 508,172 Ind. 300 |
| Parties | Rupel et al. v. Ohio Oil Company et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Jay Circuit Court; John F. LaFollette, Judge.
Action by Martin L. Rupel and others against the Ohio Oil Company and others. From a judgment for defendants. plaintiffs appeal. Transferred to Appellate Court. (See Ind.App. .)
Transferred to the Appellate Court under the provisions of § 1392, supra.
S. A D. Whipple and Emerson McGriff, for appellants.
Abram Simmons and Frank C. Dailey, for appellees.
Myers.
Appellants brought this action in the Jay Circuit Court against the Ohio Oil Company and three individuals, by a complaint in two paragraphs, in each of which a demand for $ 100,000 damages was made against said oil company, no demand being made for relief against the other defendants.
The demand against the oil company was made for the alleged conversion of oil, by drilling upon the real estate of appellants, and pumping the oil therefrom. A demurrer for want of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action was filed by the oil company, and a like demurrer by the individuals, jointly. These demurrers were sustained, and appellants refusing further to plead, judgment was rendered against them for costs.
This court is without jurisdiction of this appeal. The transcript in the cause was filed in the clerk's office on August 29, 1908. At that time the act of 1907 was in force. The fourteenth subdivision of section one (§ 1392, supra), conferring jurisdiction upon this court, reads as follows: "All cases wherein the amount of money in controversy, exclusive of interest and cost, on the judgment of the trial court exceeds $ 6,000" shall be appealable "directly to the Supreme Court," and by the eighteenth subdivision (§ 1392, supra) all cases except those enumerated in the section are appealable to the Appellate Court.
This provision is a substantial reenactment of subdivision three of section ten of the act of 1901 (Acts 1901, p. 565, § 1337j Burns 1901), under which this court held that the "amount in controversy" was to be determined from the amount of the judgment, excluding interest and cost, and not from the pleadings. Tyler v. Davis (1906), 166 Ind. 366, 77 N.E. 400; Avery v Nordyke & Marmon Co. (1905), 164 Ind. 186, 73 N.E. 119; Leonard v. Whetstone (1905), 163 Ind. 702, 72 N.E. 1045; Crum v. North Vernon Pump, etc., Co. (1904), 163 Ind. 596,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ensley
...v. Swope (1855) 7 Ind. 91;Dill v. Fraze (1907) 169 Ind. 53;McIntyre v. State (1908) 170 Ind. 163, 83 N. E. 1005;Rupel v. Ohio Oil Co. (1909) 172 Ind. 300, 88 N. E. 508;Strange v. Board (1910) 173 Ind. 640, 91 N. E. 242;Smith v. Biesaida (1910) 90 N. E. 1009. [3] And, where a statute is adop......
-
State v. Ensley
...169 Ind. 53, 79 N.E. 971; McIntyre v. State (1908), 170 Ind. 163, 83 N.E. 1005; Rupel v. Ohio Oil Co. (1909), 172 Ind. 300, 88 N.E. 508, 88 N.E. 508; Strange v. Board, etc. (1910), 173 640, 91 N.E. 242; Smith v. Biesiada (1910), 174 Ind. 134, 90 N.E. 1009. And where a statute is adopted fro......
-
Rupel v. Ohio Oil Co.
...176 Ind. 495 N.E. 225RUPEL et al.v.OHIO OIL CO. et al..No. 21,873.Supreme Court of Indiana.May 23, 1911.On Petition to Recall Opinion, June 2, 1911 ... Appeal from Circuit Court, Jay County; J. F. La Follette, Judge.Action by Martin L. Rupel and others against the Ohio Oil Company and others. From an adverse judgment, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, with instructions.See, also, 172 Ind. 300, 88 N. E. 508.S. A. Whipple and Emerson McGriff, for appellants. Simmons & Dailey, for appellees.COX, J.The appellants, Martin L. Rupel, Isaac Rupel, Jacob Rupel, and Sarah Fields, are, ... ...
- Bruiletts Creek Coal Company v. Pomatto