Troy v. Hallgarth

• Decision Date: 05 June 1899
• Citation: Troy v. Hallgarth, 35 Or. 162, 57 P. 374 (Or. 1899)
• Parties: TROY v. HALLGARTH.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

57 P. 374

35 Or. 162

TROY v. HALLGARTH.

Supreme Court of Oregon

June 5, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Union county; Robert Eakin, Judge.

Action in a justice's court by Thomas Troy against Charles Hallgarth.From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed to the circuit court, in which a judgment was rendered for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

This action was originally commenced in the justice's court of Elgin district, Union county, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of defendant's sheep breaking into plaintiff's inclosure and destroying his hay, of the reasonable value of $24.The answer, after denying upon information and belief the material allegations of the complaint, avers that, if the sheep destroyed plaintiff's hay, it was because he did not maintain a lawful fence around the same.The reply having put in issue the allegations of new matter contained in the answer, a trial was had, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff in the sum of six dollars, from which the defendant appealed.In the circuit court, plaintiff, contending that the amount in controversy was insufficient to confer jurisdiction, moved to dismiss the appeal; but, the motion being overruled, a trial was had, resulting in a verdict for defendant, and from the judgment thereon plaintiff appeals to this court.

F.S Ivanhoe, for appellant.

N.C McLeod, for respondent.

MOORE J.(after stating the facts).

The only question presented for consideration is whether the trial court had jurisdiction of the appeal.The statute, as far as applicable to the case at bar, reads as follows "Either party may appeal from a judgment given in a justice's court in a civil action, when the sum in controversy is not less than ten dollars, or for the recovery of personal property of the value of not less than ten dollars, exclusive of costs in either case."Hill's Ann.Laws, § 2117.No counterclaim having been interposed plaintiff's counsel contend that the sum in controversy as far as defendant is concerned, is six dollars, the amount for which judgment was given, while defendant's counsel insist that the sum in controversy is the amount demanded in the complaint.It is impossible to reconcile the conflict in the decisions upon the subject under consideration; some courts holding that when an appeal is taken by the defendant, provided he has filed no counterclaim and sought no affirmative relief in the trial court, the judgment there rendered is the amount in controversy.1 Enc.Pl. &Prac. 732;Hilton v. Dickinson,108 U.S. 165, 2 Sup.Ct. 424.In Lord v. Goldberg,81 Cal. 597, 22 P. 1126, an action having been instituted to recover the sum of $6,000, the defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint, and set up a counterclaim of $251, whereupon a trial was had, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $190, from which the defendant appealed.Plaintiff's counsel, contending that the counterclaim, being less than $300, was insufficient to confer jurisdiction, moved to dismiss the appeal; but it was held that the sum in controversy was the amount demanded by plaintiff in his complaint, the court saying: "The power of this court to hear and determine the matter in controversy here is in no way dependent upon the counterclaim set up by defendant.Under our present constitution and laws, where an action is brought to recover a money demand, the ad damnum clause of the complaint is the test of jurisdiction.If the amount sued for is large enough to give the superior court jurisdiction, the supreme court has jurisdiction on appeal; and this is so whether the appeal be taken by the plaintiff or defendant."In Perry v. Conger,65 Iowa, 588, 22 N.W. 688, an action having been commenced in the justice's court to recover the...