Case Name: The City of Toledo v. Converse et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1901-12-03
Citations: 65 Ohio St. 401
Docket Number: 
Parties: The City of Toledo v. Converse et al.
Judges: Minshall, O. J., Williams, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 65
Pages: 401–403

Head Matter:
The City of Toledo v. Converse et al.
Petition in error — Filed four months from date of judgment— May he amended,, when — Bo as to show sum involved is more than three hundred dollars.
A petition in error -which was filed within four months from the date of the judgment or final , order complained of, may he amended after the expiration of four months from the date of the said judgment or final order, so as to show that the sum or value involved in the judgment sought to he reversed, is more than three hundred dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.
(Decided December 3, 1901.)
Error to the Circuit Court of Lucas county.
Motion for leave to amend petition in error.
M. B. Brailey; O. K. Friedham and G. S. Northup, for plaintiff in error.
B. S. Holbrook and Hamilton é Kirby, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
By the Court:
Both the plaintiff and the defendants claim a certain piece of property. The plaintiff brought suit to enjoin the defendants from entering and building upon the disputed ground, and asked that its title be quieted. The defendants answered and also asked to have their title quieted against the plaintiff. The circuit court having decided against the plaintiff on appeal, within four months from the rendition of the judgment complained of a petition in error was filed in this court to reverse the judgment of the circuit court. It does not appear, either in the pleadings or record of the case that the case is one which involves more than three hundred dollars exclusive of interest and costs. A motion having been made by the defendants to dismiss the petition in error for want of jurisdiction, and more than four months having elapsed since the rendition of the judgment which is sought to be reversed, the plaintiff now moves for leave to amend its petition in error, and presents with the motion an amendment, duly verified, setting forth that the value of the real estate, the title to which is involved in this action, exceeds three hundred dollars, and that in the judgment sought to be reversed in this case is involved, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of more than three hundred dollars. We think that the amendment should be permitted. It comes within the general power of amendment conferred by section 5114 of the Revised Statutes. The amendment differs from the amendments made and proposed in the cases cited for the defendants, in this, that it does not set forth a new and distinct allegation of error, or cause for reversal; but merely supplies a material allegation of fact affect ing the jurisdiction of the case, not of the subject matter thereof. Application of this principle was made in Piatt v. Sinton, 35 Ohio St., 282, and Bowen v. Bowen et al., 36 Ohio St., 312.
Motion allowed.
Minshall, O. J., Williams, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.