
    Sheaff et al. Exrs. v. Williams et al. Exrs.
    
      Jurisdiction oj Supreme Court in error — Necessary facts should appear in petition or record — Allegations required when the decision is contrary to any circuit court, and not in accord with Supreme Court — Section 6710 Revised Stattites — Act of April 25, 1898 — Supreme Court practice.
    
    1. When a petition in error and the required transcript of the récord to be reviewed are filed in this court the facts necessary to show the jurisdiction of the court under section 6710, Revised Statutes, as amended April 25, 1898 (93 O. L., 255), should appear, either in the petition or the record ; and when the ground of the jurisdiction is that “the decision is contrary to that of any circuit court and not in accord with the previous decision of the Supreme Court,” the fact of a contrary decision by a circuit court, not appearing in the record should be alleged in the petition in error with such definiteness as to advise court and counsel of the conflict of decision upon which the plaintiff in error relies.
    2. To bring a case within this ground of jurisdiction it must appear that upon a question presented by the record a contrary decision has been made by some circuit court, and it is not sufficient that by a process of reasoning inconsistency between the decisions may be made to appear.
    (Decided January 31, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Clark county.
    On motion to dismiss petition in error.
    On the twenty-eighth of July, 1896, the defendants in error filed their petition in the court of common pleas (the cause having come into that court by appeal) against the plaintiffs in error to recover a sum less than $360 on a promissory note. At the January term 1898, after the taking effect of the act of April 25, 1898, to amend section 6710 of the Revised Statutes, final judgment was rendered in the court of common pleas in favor of the plaintiffs. May 16,1898, a petition in error was filed in the circuit court by Sheaff and others, executors, on consideration of which the judgment of the court of common pleas was affirmed. On the sixth of December, 1898, a petition in error was filed in this court for the reversal of the judgments of the circuit and common pleas courts. The first, second, third and fourth assignments of error in the petition filed here relate to the rulings and decisions of the court of common pleas. The fifth and sixth assignments are: “5. Said circuit court erred in affirming’ said judgment of the common pleas court. 6. That the decision of said court is not in accord with the previous decision of the Supreme Court. ” A motion is interposed by the defendants in error to dismiss the petition in error for want of jurisdiction under the act referred to.
    
      J. K. Mower, for the motion.
    
      D. F. Beinoehl, contra.
    
   By the Court:

Counsel for the plaintiffs in error concedes that the case is governed by the provisions of .the act referred to (93 O. L., 255) but claims that although there is not “involved exclusive of interest and costs the sum or value of more than’ ’ $300 this court has jurisdiction because, as stated in his brief, ‘ ‘the decision of the court below is contrary to the decision of another circuit court and not in accordance with decisions of this court. ’ ’ When a petition in error is filed in this court with the required transcript of the record to be reviewed, they should exhibit the facts upon which the jurisdiction of this court depends. Such facts will usually appear from the transcript itself showing that the controversy involves more than $300, or that the subject of the action was of such a nature as to make it re viewable here. But when the jurisdiction of this court attaches because in the language of the statute it is a “case * * * in which the decision is contrary to that of any circuit court and not in accord with the previous decision of the Supreme Court” such facts, since they do not appear in the record, should be alleged in the petition in error with such definiteness as to inform the court and opposite counsel of the conflict of decisions claimed. This petition in error does not allege that there has been such contrary decision of any circuit court.

The manner in which counsel in his brief seeks to make such conflict apparent seems also to imply a misunderstanding of this particular provision of the statute. Obviously it is intended to secure uniformity of adjudication by providing for the submission to this court of the causes depending upon questions with respect to which opposite conclusions have been reached by different circuit courts. To bring a case within this ground of our jurisdiction it is not sufficient to show by a process of reasoning that the judgment to be reviewed is inconsistent, merely, with a decision of another circuit court. The requirment of the statute is that it shall be “contrary to” such decision, and its meaning is that opposite conclusions must have been reached in the circuit court upon the same question. Motion sustained.  