Case Name: Sprinkle v. Toney et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1881-05
Citations: 73 Ind. 592
Docket Number: No. 7523
Parties: Sprinkle v. Toney et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
No. 7523.
Sprinkle v. Toney et al.
Appeal. — Amount in Controversy. — Dismissal.—In an action originating before a justice of the peace, where the amount of recovery is less than fifty dollars, with which the plaintiff is content, an appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court, by the defendant, will be dismissed under sec. 550 of the code, as amended by the act of March 14th, 1877, Acts 1877, Spec. Sess., p. 59.
From the Cass Circuit Court.
M. Winfield, for appellant.
D. P. Baldwin and D. D. Dylceman, for appellees.

Opinion:
Elliott, J.
— This action originated before a justice of the peace, where trial was had, and judgment rendered for the appellee Toney for $45.50. Appellant appealed to the cir cuit court, where a trial was had and a verdict and judgment rendered, on the 25th day of January, 1878, in favor of appellee, for forty-five dollars. Trial was had since the act of March, 1877, went into force ; the amount in controversy is¡ less than fifty dollars; the action originated before a justice of the peace, and, therefore, this appeal will not lie.
It is true that the complaint claims eighty dollars, but the judgment appealed from was for forty-five dollars, and with it the appellee was content. The only amount in controversy, therefore, is the sum of forty-five dollars. The appellee is claiming the payment of that sum and no more, and the appellant is simply resisting payment of that sum, for nothing is claimed by way of counter-claim or set-off. If the appeal fails, the appellee can get no more than forty-five dollars, interest, and costs; if it succeeds, the appellant escapes payment of that sum, interest and costs. Halleck v. Weller, 72 Ind. 342.
The appeal is dismissed, at the costs of appellant..
Opinion filed at November term, 1880.
Petition for a rehearing overruled at May term, 1881.