Reynolds v. Philips

• Citation: 51 S.E. 523,72 S.C. 32
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. PHILIPS.
• Decision Date: 27 June 1905
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

51 S.E. 523

72 S.C. 32

REYNOLDS v. PHILIPS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 27, 1905

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Gary Judge.

Action by Jim Reynolds against E. E. Philips and others. From an order of the circuit court dismissing a magistrate's judgment for plaintiff, he appeals. Affirmed.

De Pass & De Pass, for appellant. P. T. Youmans and H. P. Green, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

This appeal raises the question as to the jurisdiction of a magistrate in claim and delivery proceedings. The action was commenced in a magistrate's court to recover the possession of certain chattels, or, if a return thereof could not be had, then for $100, the alleged value thereof together with $75 damages. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant for the possession of the property, or, in case a return thereof could not be had for $100, the value thereof, and $50 damages. The defendant appealed to the circuit court on the ground that the magistrate did not have jurisdiction, as the amount claimed exceeded $100. This ground was sustained by the circuit judge, and the plaintiff appealed from his ruling. Section 21, art. 5, of the Constitution, provides that "magistrates shall have jurisdiction in such civil cases as the General Assembly may prescribe: provided, such jurisdiction shall not extend to cases where the value of property in controversy or the amount claimed exceeds one hundred dollars." The proviso sets forth two classes of cases as to which the jurisdiction of magistrates shall not extend: (1) Where the value of property in controversy exceeds $100; and (2) where the amount claimed exceeds $100. The plaintiff claimed, first, the return of the property, together with $75 damages, and second, $100, the value of the property, and $75 damages for its unlawful detention, in case a return thereof could not be had. The question of jurisdiction is to be determined by the amount claimed, and, as the amount claimed in this action exceeds $100, the magistrate did not have jurisdiction. Catawba Mills v. Hood, 42 S.C. 203, 20 S.E. 91; Corley v. Evans, 69 S.C. 520, 48 S.E. 459. This conclusion is strengthened by bearing in mind the characteristics of the action in claim and delivery. The statutory action of claim and delivery is practically a combination of the former actions of replevin and trover. Replevin was an action to recover the possession of specific chattels, together with damages for their unlawful detention. Trover was an action for damages arising out of the unlawful conversion of personal property. In so far as the plaintiff's action sought to recover the possession of...