Haws v. Morgan
Supreme Court of Alabama
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the lion. James Q. Smith. Jackson Morgan brought an action of detinue in the Circuit Court of Montgomery against A. J. Haws, to recover '“ a bay horse, with the value of the use thereof during the detention from the 15th day of April, 1877.” The defendant pleaded the general issue. On the trial, the only evidence of the value of the horse was that of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the lion. James Q. Smith. Jackson Morgan brought an action of detinue in the Circuit Court of Montgomery against A. J. Haws, to recover '“ a bay horse, with the value of the use thereof during the detention from the 15th day of April, 1877.” The defendant pleaded the general issue. On the trial, the only evidence of the value of the horse was that of the plaintiff. He testified that the “ horse was worth eighty dollars. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the horse, and assessed his value at thirty-five dollars.”…
1Opinion of the Court
BRICKELL, C. J.—
The civil jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, is in the present, as in former constitutions, limited to cases, in which the amount in controversy exceeds fifty dollars. The amount in controversy, is the amount, claimed by the plaintiff, and not the amoimt of the recovery he may obtain. The recovery may be reduced below the amount claimed without affecting the fact that the latter was really the subject of a bona fide claim and of controversy. To prevent the institution of suits founded on money demands, for fictitious amounts with the view of conferring jurisdiction, the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- King v. ParmerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
3Cited by5 opinions
- Sharpe & Son v. BarneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1896
- Morris v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
- Memphis & Charleston R. R. v. HembreeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Black v. RyanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Matlock v. JohnsonAlabama Court of Appeals · 1921