Case Name: Bradenberger v. Rigler
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1886-03-17
Citations: 68 Iowa 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bradenberger v. Rigler.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
Bradenberger v. Rigler.
1. Appeal to Supreme Court: jurisdiction: amount in controversy. It is the amount in controversy as shown by the pleadings that determines the jurisdiction of this court to entertain an appeal, under § 3173 of the Code. So, where the demand was for $100 only, and there was no counter-claim, the fact that there was judgment for $100 and costs does not give this court jurisdiction without a certificate from the trial judge.
2. -: ■ — ——: only $100 in controversy: insufficient certificate. Where only $100 is in controversy, a certificate of the trial judge which fails to state any particular question on which the opinion of this court is desired is insufficient to confer jurisdiction of the appeal.
Appeal from Lee Circuit Court.
Wednesday, March 17.
Action on an injunction bond in the penal sum of $100. Judgment was asked for that amount. The judgment rendered was for “one hundred dollars, and costs of suit at $---, and that execution issue therefor.” The defendant appeals.
8. T. A. T. Marshall, for appellant.
McCrary <& ILagerman, for appellee.

Opinion:
Seevebs, J.
I. A motion has been filed by the appellee to dismiss the appeal on several grounds, among which are that the amount in controversy does not exceed $100, and there is no sufficient certificate of the trial judge that there are questions of law upon £]ie opinion of this court is desired. As the penalty of the bond was only $100, and as judgment for that amount only was asked, and as there was no Counterclaim pleaded, it is evident that the amount in controversy, as shown by the pleadings, does not exceed $100, and therefore this court does not have jurisdiction unless the trial judge has certified that there are questions of law involved upon which it is desirable to have the opinion of this court. Code, § 3173. It is said, however, that, as there was a judgment against the defendants for $100, and costs, therefore there is more than $100 in controversy. The fallacy of this suggestion clearly appears when reference is had to the statute, which provides that it is the amount in controversy, as shown by the pleadings, which constitutes the jurisdictional test. Curran v. Excelsior Coal Co., 63 Iowa, 94.
II. The certificate of the trial judge is as follows: " This cause involves a determination of a question of law upon which it is desirable to have the opinion of the supreme court, and it is the desire of the defendant to appeal; therefore I sign this certificate as to the law, the evidence, and instructions." This certificate is clearly insufficient, as the numerous decisions of this court will show. In fact, no particular question is certified.
The motion must be sustained.
Appeal Dismissed.