Case Name: Bateman v. Sisson
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1886-12-22
Citations: 70 Iowa 518
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bateman v. Sisson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
Bateman v. Sisson.
1. Appeal: broke justice’s oourt: amount in controversy. Plaintiff, in justice’s court, claimed to recover $100, but he recovered judgment for $20 only, and the defendant appealed to the circuit court. Before the appeal, however, plaintiff filed with the justice a paper withdrawing his claim for $100, and claiming only $20. Held that the effect of this paper was to reduce the amount in controversy, as shown by the pleadings, to less than $25, and that an appeal to the circuit court would not lie. (Code, § 3575; Milner v. Gross, 66 Iowa, 252.)
Appeal from, Delaware Circuit Court.
Wednesday, December 22.
This action was brought before a j ustice of the peace, and judgment was rendered against defendant, who appealed to the circuit court, where his appeal was dismissed. He now appeals to this court.
Blair dk Norris, for appellant.
J. H. Trewin and 'Yoran <& Arnold, for appellee.

Opinion:
BecK, J.
I. The plaintiff, 'upon the commencement of his action before the justice of the peace, claimed to recover $100. Judgment was rendered against defendant for $20. Afterwards, and before the appeal, plaintiff filed a paper called a "remittitur," withdrawing his claim for $100, and claiming only the sum of $20, and remitting his claim for any sum above that amount. In the circuit court the appeal was dismissed, on the ground that it was not authorized by the statute; (Code, § 3575;) the amount in controversy being less than $25. The cause was sent here on the certificate of the judge of the circuit court, the amount involved in the action being less than $100.
II. Whatever name may be given to the paper filed by the plaintiff before the justice of the peace after the rendition of judgment, its effect was to reduce the claim of plaintiff to $20. Upon the appeal, bad it been authorized by law, plaintiff could have recovered no greater sum. Indeed, his claim, if it were valid for a larger sum, in no action or proceeding could be recovered beyond the sum of $20. He voluntarily cut off, by filing the paper, all right to demand judgment for any sum beyond $20. The pleadings in the case must be regarded as restricted by this paper to a claim for $20. After it was filed, the amount in controversy was $20, and no more. An appeal was therefore not authorized. Code, § 3575. See Milner v. Gross, 66 Iowa, 252.
The circuit court rightly dismissed the appeal.
AFFIRMED.