Meyer v. Helland
Meyer v. Helland
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was begun before a justice of the peace in one of the'precincts of Phillips county. Observing the mandate of section 1933 of the General Statutes of 1883, the justice indorsed on the back of the summons the amount of the claim as one hundred dollars. The plaintiff contended that he had sustained damages by the taking of certain horses from his pasture by the defendants, Meyer and Reeves. Apparently the plaintiff’s title was a qualified one, resulting from his possession and the contract under which the stock came to
That court was powerless to enter a judgment beyond -the amount named in the plaintiff’s summons. The amount indorsed on the back of the summons as the amount of the plaintiff’s claim, like the ad damnum in the ordinary complaint, concludes the plaintiff as to the amount of his recovery, unless in some legal and recognized manner it be changed. Denver Brick Manfg. Co. v. McAllister, 6 Colo. 326; Eaton v. Graham, 11 Ill. 619; T. P. & W. Ry. Co. v. Pence, 71 Ill. 174.
, For this error the judgment must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Beversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.