Catchot v. Russell
| Decision Date | 04 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | 29430 |
| Citation | 160 Miss. 330,134 So. 140 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | CATCHOT v. RUSSELL |
1. COURTS. Interest is not to be included in determining "principal amount in controversy" on question whether circuit court has jurisdiction (Const. 1890, section 171).
Const 1890, section 171, and Code 1930, section 2071, provide that jurisdiction of justices of the peace shall extend to causes in which principal amount in controversy does not exceed two hundred dollars.
2 COURTS.
Test as to jurisdictional amount in controversy is determined at time of filing suit (Code 1930, section 2071; Const. 1890, section 171).
3. COURTS. Where agreed percentage of principal and interest added as attorney's fee to face of note, excluding interest, exceeded two hundred dollars, circuit court had jurisdiction; attorney's fee being part of "principal amount in controversy" (Code 1930 section 2071; Const. 1890, section 171).
The circuit court, and not justice court, had jurisdiction under the conditions stated above, because note provided for six per cent. interest from date and ten per cent. attorney's fees on principal and interest to be added as collection fees, and hence attorney's fee to date of suit constituted part of "principal amount in controversy."
APPEAL from circuit court of Jackson county, HON. W. A. WHITE, Judge.
Action by A. J. Catchot, administrator of the estate of George L. Friar, deceased, against H. Minor Russell. From a judgment dismissing the cause for want of jurisdiction, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
J. L. Taylor, of Gulfport, for appellant.
In the case of Parks v. Granger, 96 Miss. 503, the Supreme Court in that case held that the jurisdiction upon a promissory note for a principal sum and an attorney's fees where the aggregate amount exceeded two hundred dollars that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, holding that attorney's fees were not costs but a part of the matter in controversy and therefore had to be added to the principal sum in order to fix the jurisdiction. In the instant case adding the attorney's fees to the principal of the note the sum is in excess of two hundred dollars, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the circuit court.
The test of jurisdiction is always determined at the time of the filing of the suit.
Martin et al. v. Harden et al., 52 Miss. 694; M. J. & K. C. R. R. v. Hitt & Rutherford, 55 So. 484; Wainwright v. Atkins, 104 Miss. 438; Cantrell et al. v. Peugh, 115 So. 116.
Bullard & Bullard, of Hattiesburg, for appellee.
Our court has repeatedly held that in computing the amount in controversy interest is excluded.
New Orleans R. R. v. Evans, 49 Miss. 785; Jackson v. Whitfield, 51 Miss. 202; Martin v. Harden, 52 Miss. 694; Wainwright v. Atkins, 104 Miss. 438; Jackson v. Whitfield, 51 Miss. 202.
When this note became due and payable if suit had been brought to enforce its payment the circuit court would not have jurisdiction.
Since interest is not considered in fixing the jurisdiction of the court, neither can ten per cent of the accrued interest be considered in fixing the jurisdiction of the court.
The appellant, Catchot, administrator of the estate of George L. Friar, deceased, sued Russell, the appellee, in the circuit court of Jackson county, on a note dated April 22, 1924, which note was made an exhibit to the declaration, and provided for six per cent interest from date, and ten per cent attorney's fee on the principal and interest to be added as collection fees, and prayed for a judgment in accordance with the terms of the note. The suit was filed on the 8th day of July, 1930.
The circuit court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction, on the theory that the principal amount in controversy was less than that of which the circuit court had jurisdiction, or not in excess of two hundred dollars.
It is apparent from the statement of facts that the principal amount of money promised to be paid in this case is one hundred eighty dollars, that the principal and interest from the date of the note, April 22, 1924, to the date suit was filed, would be in excess of two hundred forty-five dollars. The attorney's fee of ten per cent would be in excess of twenty-four dollars and fifty cents; the attorney's fee, thus ascertained, added to the face of the note, one hundred eighty dollars is in excess of two hundred four dollars.
The question at issue here is whether or not the circuit court or the justice of the peace court had jurisdiction of this cause.
Section 171 of the Constitution of 1890 defines the jurisdiction of the justice court in this language: "The jurisdiction of justices of the peace shall extend to causes in which the principal amount in controversy shall not exceed the sum of two hundred dollars." Section 2071, Code 1930, is in the same language. This court has consistently held that interest is not included in determining the principal amount in controversy. See New Orleans, J. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Evans, 49 Miss. 785; Jackson v. Whitfield, 51 Miss. 202; Martin v. Harden, 52 Miss. 694; Wainwright v. Atkins, 104 Miss. 438, 61 So. 454.
It is argued by appellee that the calculation, in order to ascertain the principal amount in controversy in this case should be on one hundred eighty dollars, face of the note, interest thereon to date of maturity, five dollars and eighty-four cents, ten percent of the face of the note, eighteen dollars. Ten per cent of the interest is fifty-eight cents, so that the principal amount in controversy, according to this calculation, would be one hundred ninety-eight dollars and fifty-eight, which, if correct, would establish jurisdiction in a justice court; and he also argues that the same reason would obtain for not allowing the attorney's fee, as ascertained on the date suit was filed, as was announced by the court in Jackson v. Whitfield, supra, for declining to permit interest to be counted in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oxford Production Credit Ass'n v. Duckworth
...cases from that state concerning subject matter jurisdiction and amount in controversy are instructive. Thus, in Cachot v. Russell, 160 Miss. 330, 334, 134 So. 140, 141 (1931), the court stated: Attorney's fees arising out of the contract on account of the failure of the maker to perform it......
-
Travis & Son v. F. A. Hulett & Son
...without jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a justice of the peace is determined at the time of the filing of the suit. See Catchot v. Russell, 160 Miss. 330, 134 So. 140, authorities there cited. It is also settled in this jurisdiction that the amount of attorney's fee provided for in a note......
-
Ram-Kabir of Am., LLC v. S.C. Anderson Grp. Int'l
...jurisdiction is the amount of damages claimed.” Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Crook , 157 Miss. 518, 128 So. 574, 577 (1930). In Catchot v. Russell , 160 Miss. 330, 134 So. 140 (1931), that Court, relying on cases decided as far back as 1876, held:the principal amount in controversy in determining whe......
-
Hooper v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
...then probably be held to be a part of the cost of the suit, and not a subject of dispute or controversy." Id. (quoting Cachot v. Russell, 160 Miss. 330, 134 So. 140 (1931)). Oxford was a diversity case, however, and we stated that to determine "whether the present case was 'an integral part......