Brown v. Alabama G. S. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 May 1889 |
| Parties | BROWN v. ALABAMA GREAT SO. R. CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Tuscaloosa county; S. H. SPROTT, Judge.
This action was by R. R. Brown against the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful killing of certain stock the property of plaintiff. The suit was commenced in the justice of the peace court, and judgment there rendered for plaintiff. The amount claimed was $65. This appeal is from a judgment of the circuit court dismissing the cause on motion of defendant, on the ground that the justice's court, from which the cause had been brought by defendant's appeal, was without jurisdiction; the complaint sounding in tort, and the damages claimed being more than $50.
Hargrove & VandeGraff, for appellant.
Sam. F. Rice and Wood & Wood, for appellee.
Our decisions are uniform that under our constitution and statutes the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace in cases of tort is limited to $50. This is the language of the general statute. Code 1886, § 839; Taylor v. Woods, 52 Ala. 474; Burns v. Henry, 67 Ala. 209; Carter v. Alford, 64 Ala. 236; Rodgers v. Gaines, 73 Ala. 218; Railroad Co. v. Christian, 82 Ala. 307, 1 South. Rep. 121. In the Code of 1886, § 1149, is the following provision: "A justice of the peace has jurisdiction of all actions for injury to or destruction of stock by the locomotive or cars of a railroad, if the sum in controversy does not exceed one hundred dollars." We have thus the naked inquiry whether the constitutions, federal and state, permit the legislature to discriminate between railroad corporations and other persons, natural or artificial, in the matter of the jurisdiction of an inferior tribunal. Or, in other words, whether it is competent for the legislature to limit a justice's jurisdiction to $50, in suits against tort-feasors generally, and to enlarge it to $100 when a railroad corporation is the offender. Our former rulings compel us to declare section 1149 of the Code of 1886 to be unconstitutional. Railroad Co. v. Morris, 65 Ala. 193; Zeigler v. Railroad Co., 58 Ala. 594; Smith v. Railroad Co., 75 Ala 449; Mayor v. Insurance Co., 53 Ala 570; Green v. State, 73 Ala. 26.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dillard
... 72 So. 56 196 Ala. 539 STATE ex rel. KNOX et al. v. DILLARD et al. 4 Div. 610 Supreme Court of Alabama April 21, 1916 . . On. Rehearing, May 25, 1916. . . Appeal. from Circuit Court, Covington County; A.B. Foster, Judge. . ... as plaintiff undertook to raise it in this case.". . . In the. case of Brown v. A.G.S.R.R. Co., 87 Ala. 370, 6 So. 295, the constitutionality of a statute was challenged in the. justice court, and was upheld. On appeal to ......
-
Ex parte Bottjer
......5279, are unconstitutional, void. and class legislation. (Const., art. 3, sec. 19, subd. 2;. State v. Williams, 32 S.C. 123, 10 S.E. 876;. Brown v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 87 Ala. 370, 6 So. 295; Ragio v. State, 86 Tenn. 272, 6 S.W. 401;. State v. Garbroski, 111 Iowa 496, 82 Am. St. 524, 82. ......
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama
...... natural or artificial, which is not, in like conditions,. imposed on all other classes.'. . . . The. same rule was enforced by the Supreme Court of the state in. the subsequent cases of L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Baldwin, . 85 Ala. 627, 5 So. 311, 7 L.R.A. 266, Brown v. A.G.S.R.R. Co., 87 Ala. 370, 6 So. 295, Randolph v. Builders' & Painters' Supply Company, 106 Ala. 511, 17 So. 721, in each of which statutes making the. forbidden discrimination between corporations and other. suitors were adjudged unconstitutional. See, also, Durkee. v. Janesville, ......
-
Randolph v. Builders' & Painters' Supply Co.
...Railroad Co. v. Morris, 65 Ala. 199; Smith v. Railroad Co., 75 Ala. 451; Railroad Co. v. Baldwin, 85 Ala. 627, 5 So. 311; Brown v. Railroad Co., 87 Ala. 370, 6 So. 295. are thus led to declare the provision of the statute, giving a lien to the plaintiff's attorney, unconstitutional and void......