Castner v. Chandler

• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Citation: 2 Minn. 86
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: CASTNER & HINKLEY vs. CHANDLER & GREEN.

Page 86

2 Minn. 86

CASTNER & HINKLEY vs. CHANDLER & GREEN.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Error to district court, Ramsey county.

Sanford & Beveridge, for plaintiffs in error.

Wm. P. Murray, for defendants in error.

FLANDRAU, J.

The defendants in error in this court sued the plaintiffs in error, in the month of November, 1855, in the district court of Ramsey county, on a note dated July 11th, 1855, for ninety-two dollars and fifty cents, payable in twenty days from date, and made by the defendants below. The complaint prays for judgment for the note, with interest at two per cent. per month, while the allegations in the complaint show that it does not draw any interest until after due, and then only seven per cent. per annum. At the time of the commencement of the action, there was less than one hundred dollars due on the note.

The defendants in the court below demurred to the complaint, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. The demurrer was overruled, and judgment given for the plaintiff for the note, with two per cent. per month interest. The defendants bring error to this court.

Whatever opinion the court below may have entertained on the question of jurisdiction raised by the demurrer, we are at a loss to see how interest at two per cent. per month could have been allowed on a note which made no provision for interest at all, and feel satisfied that the judgment must have been rendered upon a mistake of facts, most probably upon a note intended to have been declared upon, but mis-described in the complaint.

The jurisdiction of the several courts of the territory of Minnesota were derived from the organic act of the territory, which provides, in section nine, "The jurisdiction of the several courts herein provided for, both appellate and original, and that of probate court and justices of the peace shall be as limited by law. Provided, that the justices of the peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy where the title or boundaries of land may be in dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundred dollars."

In pursuance of this act, the legislature of the territory made provision for limiting the jurisdiction of the courts of justices of the peace, on page 299 of Revised Statutes.

Section 5 provides as follows: "Sec. 5. Every such justice shall have jurisdiction over, and cognizance of, the following actions and proceedings: 1st. Of an action arising on contract for the recovery of money only, if the sum claimed does not exceed one hundred dollars."

This subdivision of section 5 confers jurisdiction on the justices' court of the subject of this action; various other matters are given, by subsequent subdivisions, to the justices' court, but they are unimportant to the present inquiry.

On page 287 of the Revised Statutes, section 3, as amended by section 5 of the amendments of 1851 to the Revised Statutes, on page 6 of amendments, the jurisdiction of the district court is limited as follows: —

"Sec. 3. The district court of this territory shall have original jurisdiction in equity as herein prescribed; and original jurisdiction in all civil actions...