Case Name: Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company v. Coyle
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1882-11
Citations: 85 Ind. 516
Docket Number: No. 10,547
Parties: Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company v. Coyle.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 516–517

Head Matter:
No. 10,547.
Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company v. Coyle.
Supreme Court. — Amomt in Controversy. — Jurisdiction.—To give the Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases originating before justices of the peace, the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, must exceed fifty dollars; and when the plaintiff recovers that sum or is satisfied with the amount recovered, and the defendant is merely resisting the recovery, claiming no set-off' or counter-claim, the amount so recovered is all that is in controversy within the meaning of section 632, R. S. 1881.
From the Montgomery Circuit Court.
A. D. Thomas, for appellant.
E. C. Snyder, for appellee.

Opinion:
Elliott, J.
The appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained.
The action originated before a justice of the peace; the appellee's judgment, exclusive of interest, is for $50, and she is content with her judgment. The adjudged cases settle these propositions:
1st. Where the plaintiff recovers $50, or less, and is satisfied with the amount of the recovery, and the defendant is merely resisting the recovery, and is claiming no set-off or counter-claim, then the amount so recovered is all that is in controversy. Sprinkle v. Toney, 73 Ind. 592; Parsley v. Eskew, 73 Ind. 558; Pennsylvania Co. v. Trimble, 75 Ind. 378.
• 2d. In order to give this court jurisdiction in cases originating before justices of the peace, the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, must exceed $50. Wagner v. Kastner, 79 Ind. 162; Breidert v. Krueger, 76 Ind. 55; PLalleclc v. Weller, 72 Ind. 342.
It is very obvious that what is said in Breidert v. Krueger, supra, as to the statement in the body of the complaint controlling instead of the sum laid in the conclusion, has not the remotest application to such a case as the present.
Appeal dismissed.