Barns v. Holland

• Citation: 3 Mo. 47
• Parties: BARNS v. HOLLAND.
• Decision Date: 31 January 1831
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

3 Mo. 47

BARNS

v.HOLLAND.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1831.

ERROR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY.

GAMBLE, for plaintiff.

BENT, for defendant.

TOMPKINS, J.

Barns sued Holland in debt before the Justice of the Peace. and had judgment. Holland appealed to the Circuit Court, where his appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the justice was reversed. To reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court, Barns prosecutes his writ of error. From the bill of exceptions we learn that the defendant showed the court that there were then pending in that court two other suits between the same parties, brought there by appeal from the judgment of the same justice who tried this cause. It appeared also that the judgments rendered by the justice were for the following sums: one for ninety dollars debt, and six dollars and ninety-seven and a half cents damages; another for sixty dollars debt, and eleven dollars and eighty-five cents damages; and the third for thirty seven dollars debt, and five dollars and eight cents damages. The three judgments aforesaid were obtained before the same Justice of the Peace, and the suits were all founded on three several notes delivered to the justice by the plaintiff at the same time to be sued on, and suit being accordingly commenced on them, they were all tried on the same day. The defendant then moved the court to consolidate the said actions, “and the court thereupon (it is said in the bill of exceptions) ordered that this and the two other suits should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the Justice of the Peace of the said suits.”

The act establishing Justices' Courts, and regulating the collection of small debts, gives the justices of the peace cognizance of all actions of debt, covenant, assumpsit, book account, and other actions arising on contracts, where the sum or balance due, or damages or thing demanded, shall not exceed ninety dollars. Each several note sued on is a separate demand, neither of which exceeds ninety dollars. The mode of proceeding is prescribed by the statute, and no power is given by it to the justice, or to any other judicial officer, to compel the plaintiff suing before a justice of the peace, either to sue on all the demands he may have on one defendant, or to consolidate his actions after he may have sued on several demands. It seems to be the policy of the law making power to induce creditors to collect debts before a justice of the peace, in order to prevent the accumulation of...