Capitol Amusement Company v. Washington and New Jersey Realty Company
| Decision Date | 01 February 1929 |
| Docket Number | 13,180 |
| Citation | 164 N.E. 715,90 Ind.App. 389 |
| Parties | CAPITOL AMUSEMENT COMPANY ET AL. v. WASHINGTON AND NEW JERSEY REALTY COMPANY |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rehearing denied July 6, 1929. Transfer denied December 4 1929.
From Marion Municipal Court (5,714); Fred McCallister, Judge.
Action by the Washington and New Jersey Realty Company against the Capitol Amusement Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appealed.
Affirmed as to named defendant, and reversed as to codefendant.
Henderson & Henderson, for appellants.
Noel Hickam, Boyd & Armstrong and Martin M. Hugg, for appellee.
Suit by appellee as landlord against appellants for possession of real estate and for damages for holding over. Appellant Capitol Amusement Company was appellee's tenant under a written lease, and appellant Woodsmall had, in writing, guaranteed that lessee would carry out the terms of the lease. Complaint was in the usual form. Demand was for possession of the real estate and $ 2,000 damages. To the complaint, the defendants filed separate demurrers, identical in form, challenging the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter of the suit. Demurrers were overruled, and appellants refusing to plead further, judgment was rendered against each of them in favor of appellee for possession of the real estate and damages in the sum of $ 1,000. This appeal followed.
Action of the court in overruling the separate demurrers is assigned as error.
The important question presented by this appeal is whether the municipal court of Marion county has jurisdiction of a suit for possession of real estate where the damage sought to be recovered is in excess of $ 500.
The municipal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, created by statute, and has only such powers as the statute of its creation confers. Section 2 of the statute (Acts 1925 p. 457, § 1725 Burns 1926) provides: It is appellants' contention that the provision in this section with reference to the amount of damages sought to be recovered in civil actions founded on contract or tort is applicable to the last clause of the section which confers "jurisdiction irrespective of the value of the property sought to be recovered in possessory actions between landlord and tenant." On the other hand, it is contended by appellee that the $ 500 provision has no application to and does not limit nor restrict the provision conferring jurisdiction in possessory actions, and that the conferring of jurisdiction in possessory actions carries with it, by necessary implication, the granting of jurisdiction for the recovery of damages unlimited in amount. We concur in the latter view.
It is elementary that in the construction of a statute, the meaning of which is uncertain, the court may take into consideration the historical facts leading to the enactment, and the known purpose sought to be accomplished. Hyland v. Rochelle (1913), 179 Ind. 671, 100 N.E. 842.
This court judicially knows that the municipal courts were created to replace, so far as possible under the Constitution, justices of the peace in any county wherein is located a city containing a population of not less than 300,000, and that it was the intention to give the municipal courts greater jurisdiction than had been given to justices of the peace, to the end that relief would thereby be given to circuit and superior courts. That being true, the judicial constructions of the statutes fixing the jurisdiction of justices of the peace becomes important.
The act creating justices of the peace (2 R. S. 1852 p. 451) provided that justices of the peace should have "jurisdiction to try and determine suits founded on contract or tort, when the debt or damage claimed or the value of the property sought to be recovered does not exceed $ 100." This is substantially the language of the first clause of § 2 of the Municipal Court Act, above quoted. The Legislature which enacted the statute creating justices of the peace, at the same session, enacted the following statute: "Whenever in pursuance of legal notice,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capitol Amusement Co. v. Washington & New Jersey Realty Co.
... ... 1, 1929 ... Appeal from Municipal Court, Marion County; F. McAllister, Judge.Action by the Washington & New Jersey Realty Company against the Capitol Amusement Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed as to named defendant, and reversed as to ... ...