
    Koch v. Barbour. Unger v. Unger.
    
      ■Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in error — Petition must contain allegation that sum involves $800, when — Section 6710, Revised Statutes — Such allegation necessary in suits for •miunction and specific performance of contracts to convey real estate.
    
    1. When the jurisdiction in error of this court under Section 6710, Revised Statutes, depends on the sum or value involved, and it is not disclosed by the record presented for review, the petition in error must contain an allegation that such sum or value, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds three hundred dollars.
    2. Such allegation is necessary in petitions in error for the reversal of judgments in suits for injunction and for the specific performance of contracts to convey real estate.
    (Decided October 22, 1901.)
    Error to tlie Circuit Court of Richland county.
    Error to the Circuit Court of Paulding county.
    Mrs. Barbour brought suit against Mrs. Kocli for an injunction restraining her from putting doors and windows in the wall upon the line between their premises contrary to an agreement upon a consideration. The case was tried in the circuit court upon appeal and a perpetual injunction was granted as prayed for. Mrs. Koch filed her petition in error here to obtain a reversal of the judgment of the circuit court. Her petition in error does not allege that there, is involved in the judgmént whose reversal she seeks “the sum or value of more than three hundred dollars.”
    In the case of Unger v. Unger the defendant in error brought suit for the specific performance of a contract to convey real estate. 1 Tlie case was tried on appeal in the circuit court where a decree for the specific performance of the contract was entered in accordance with the prayer of the petition. The party against whom specific performance was decreed filed his petition in error here for the reversal of the judgment, but he does not allege that there is involved in*the judgment whose reversal he seeks or in the case “the sum or value of more than $300.”
    
      Douglas & Mennerl and M. A. Dittenhoefer, for Mrs. Koch.
    
      John (7. Burns and Cummins & McBride, for Mrs. Barbour.
    
      A. C. Robeson and Snook & Savage, for Isaac Unger.
    
      Holland & Willis, for John J. Unger.
   By the Court :

Jurisdiction in error is conferred upon this court by section 6710 of the Revised Statutes. The pertinent provisions of the section as amended April 25, 1898, before either of these petitions in error was filed, are: “A judgment rendered or a final order made by any circuit court * * * may be reversed, vacated, or modified by the Supreme Court on petition in error, for errors appearing on the record, in any case * * * in which is involved, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of more than three hundred dollars * * * .”

In Sheaff v. Williams et al., 59 Ohio St., 559, it was decided that “When a petition in error and the required transcript of the record 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, should appear either in the petition or the record.” When jurisdiction depends on the sum or value involved it usually appears ■ in the record brought here for review, but when, as in the present cases, it does not so appear, a sum or value necessary to bring the cases within the jurisdiction of this court must be alleged in the petition in error, and if the allegation is denied it must be supported by evidence. The statute referred to is not a general grant of jurisdiction to reverse judgments of inferior tribunals with an exception of cases involving less than three hundred dollars. On the contrary the grant is of jurisdiction in those cases only in which more than three hundred dollars is involved. The jurisdiction of a court of record over the subject matter of a controversy should appear in its record. It is quite obvious that such allegation of fact must be made when a review is sought of judgments rendered in suits for injunction and specific performance, since the sum or value involved does not otherwise appear.

Petitions in error dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Minshall, C. J.; Williams, Buekut, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.  