endomorphosis/Caselaw_Access_Project_JSON

1"{\"id\": \"8863465\", \"name\": \"The Edinburgh Lombard Investment Company, Limited, v. Emma Cooper et al.\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Edinburgh Lombard Investment Co. v. Cooper\", \"decision_date\": \"1904-02-06\", \"docket_number\": \"No. 13,488\", \"first_page\": 517, \"last_page\": \"518\", \"citations\": \"68 Kan. 517\", \"volume\": \"68\", \"reporter\": \"Kansas Reports\", \"court\": \"Kansas Supreme Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Kansas\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T21:28:47.105658+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"All the Justices concurring.\", \"parties\": \"The Edinburgh Lombard Investment Company, Limited, v. Emma Cooper et al.\", \"head_matter\": \"The Edinburgh Lombard Investment Company, Limited, v. Emma Cooper et al.\\nNo. 13,488.\\n(75 Pac. 488.)\\nSYLLABUS BY THE COURT.\\nPractice, Supreme Court \\u2014 Jurisdiction\\u2014Amount in Controversy. Plaintiff recovered from defendants a judgment for . $515.66, with interest at ten per cent, per annum, costs of suit, and foreclosure of its mortgage. Defendants filed a motion to correct the journal entry. The motion was sustained and plaintiff\\u2019s recovery was reduced to the extent of the interest and costs. This proceeding is brought to the supreme court by .plaintiff to review said order. Held, that the amount in controversy was the loss of the interest sustained by plaintiff in the correction of the journal entry, and, being less than $100, the supreme court has no : jurisdiction to review the case.\\nError from Rooks district court; Chas. W. Smith, judge.\\nOpinion filed February 6, 1904.\\nDismissed.\\nCook & Gossett, for plaintiff in error.\\nW. B. Ham, for defendants in error;\", \"word_count\": \"516\", \"char_count\": \"3070\", \"text\": \"The opinion of the court was delivered by\\n.Atkinson, J. :\\nThe Edinburgh Lombard Investment\\nCompany, Limited; filed its petition of foreclosure in the district court of Rooks county on the 11th day of May, 1900, against Emma Cooper et al., to foreclose a mortgage upon land in that county. Defendants answered, claiming a set-off. Upon the trial in the district court defendants were allowed a set-off against the claim of plaintiff, and plaintiff recovered judgment against defendants for the sum of \\u00a7515.66, with interest at ten per cent, per annum, the costs of suit, and foreclosure of the mortgage. Plaintiff prosecuted error to the supreme court and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. (The Edinburgh Lombard In vestment Company, Limited, v. Emma Cooper et al., 64 Kan. 888, 68 Pac. 1127.)\\nOn June 25, 1902, after the mandate of the supreme court had been filed in the district court, defendants filed their motion to correct the journal entry in said cause. Upon the hearing of this motion it was sustained, and the court made an order correcting the journal entry so as to show that plaintiff did not recover interest and costs on said judgment of $515.66. To the order of the district court correcting the journal entry the plaintiff excepted, and has brought proceedings in error to the supreme court.\\nWe have carefully examined the record filed in this court. ' The amount in controversy, exclusive of costs, would be the amount of loss of interest which plaintiff sustained by the order of the court correcting said journal entry. This amount is less than $100. The appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court can be exercised in civil actions only where the amount or value in controversy, exclusive of costs, exceeds $100, except in certain cases, and the present case does not come within any of the exceptions. (Gen. Stat. 1901, \\u00a7 5019; Coal Co. v. Barber, 47 Kan. 29, 27 Pac. 114; Loomis v. Bass, 48 id. 26, 28 Pac. 1012; Skoin v. Limerick, 50 id. 465, 31 Pac. 1051.)\\nAs this court has no jurisdiction to review the case, it will be dismissed.\\nAll the Justices concurring.\"}"