Ball v. Biggam

• Decision Date: 08 March 1890
• Citation: 23 P. 565,43 Kan. 327
• Parties: H. E. BALL v. DAVID BIGGAM et al
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

23 P. 565

43 Kan. 327

H. E. BALL v. DAVID BIGGAM et al

Supreme Court of Kansas

March 8, 1890

Error from Shawnee District Court.

THE opinion states the case.

Judgment reversed and remanded.

W. P Douthitt, and Bennett R. Wheeler, for plaintiff in error.

J. B Johnson, for defendants in error.

HOLT C. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

HOLT, C.:

This action was brought before a justice of the peace of Shawnee county, by defendants in error as plaintiffs, against the defendant. In their bill of particulars, which was filed on the 25th of September, 1884, they asked judgment for $ 300, and interest from September 14, 1884. A judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs in the justice's court, but the amount thereof is not stated in the record. The defendant, Ball, appealed to the Shawnee district court, where the action was tried at the January term, 1887, by the court and a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiffs for $ 350.75. Afterward, the plaintiffs filed a remittitur of $ 50.75 of the verdict, which was allowed by the court, and a motion for a new trial which had been filed was overruled, and judgment entered against defendant for $ 300 and costs, over his objections and exceptions. In his brief he presents a single question for our consideration, namely, whether the district court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action.

The defendant filed neither answer, set-off nor counterclaim to the plaintiffs' bill of particulars; but in the district court, after the jury had been impaneled and a witness called for plaintiffs, he objected to the introduction of any evidence, because the bill of particulars did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and also for the reason that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. The plaintiffs say that this objection came too late, and that all questions of jurisdiction had been waived by the defendant taking his appeal and appearing for trial in the district court.

The first question that confronts us is, whether the justice of the peace had jurisdiction of the subject-matter in controversy. Section 2, procedure civil, before justices, provides:

"Under the limitations and restrictions herein provided, justices of the peace shall have original jurisdiction of civil actions: first, for the recovery of money only, and to try and determine the same where the amount claimed does not exceed three hundred dollars."

This section fixes the jurisdiction of the justice upon the amount claimed. In this action the amount claimed over three hundred dollars was but a fraction of a dollar, but if we could extend it sixty cents we might extend it sixty dollars. The language of the statute is imperative; it lays down an arbitrary rule; the line is drawn exactly at three hundred dollars, and the courts have no authority to change or enlarge it. (Wagstaff v. Challiss, 31 Kan. 212; Wilson v. Sparkman, 17 Fla. 871; Calloway v. Byram, 95 Ind. 423; Elderkin v. Spurbeck, 2 Wis. 129.)

The plaintiffs concede that ordinarily the jurisdiction that the district court obtains by virtue of an appeal is simply that of the justice's court; but they claim that because the defendant appealed and sought the district court as the forum in which to try the action, he has waived this rule. The jurisdiction of the district court is exclusively and wholly appellate; its original jurisdiction is not invoked at all. If the justice's court was without jurisdiction, it follows that the district court was also without jurisdiction. If the court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the...