Seward v. Steeley

• Decision Date: 06 November 1902
• Docket Number: 3,993
• Parties: SEWARD v. STEELEY ET AL
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

65 N.E. 216

29 Ind.App. 689

SEWARD v. STEELEY ET AL

No. 3,993

Court of Appeals of Indiana

November 6, 1902

From Monroe Circuit Court; W. H. Martin, Judge.

Action by James G. Steeley and others against Isabella K. Seward. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

J. B Wilson and J. E. Henley, for appellant.

H. A Lee, H. C. Duncan and I. C. Batman, for appellees.

OPINION

COMSTOCK, J.

This action was commenced by appellees against appellant on an account before a justice of the peace. The complaint alleged that there was due $ 174.77, balance of the account; that there had been long and unnecessary delay in the payment thereof; and that there was due thereon six per cent. interest from the 1st day of January, 1898. The prayer is for judgment for $ 200. The bill of particulars filed with the complaint foots up $ 174.77. Judgment was rendered by the justice in favor of the appellee for $ 174.77. Upon appeal to the circuit court, judgment for the same sum was rendered in favor of appellee; from that judgment this appeal is taken.

Appellees file their motion to dismiss the appeal, and brief in support thereof, upon the ground that the case is within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, and that, under § 6 of an act concerning appeals (Acts 1901, p. 565), is not appealable. Said section is as follows: "No appeal shall hereafter be taken to the Supreme Court or to the Appellate Court in any civil case which is within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace except as provided in § 8 of this act." This case is not within the exception specified. The appeal was not filed until after the law denying the right to appeal had gone into effect.

It remains then to determine whether the case is within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. We quote from Mitchell v. Smith, 24 Ind. 252: "The cause of action first filed was in the form of an account the footing upon which was $ 200, though the correct aggregate of the items was $ 200.75. This was indorsed thus: 'Demand $ 176.75.' The amount footed on the account, as filed with the justice, ought, we think, to be taken as the amount for which judgment was demanded, in the absence of any other statement of the demand. If this be correct, it is unnecessary to determine whether the demand on the back of the paper ought to be regarded as a part of the complaint, though the indulgence which has always been extended to pleadings in justices' courts, in this State, would, doubtless, justify us in so regarding it." Second Nat. Bank v. Hutton, 81 Ind. 101, was a suit commenced before a justice of the peace. The complaint alleged that appellee was indebted...