Dewey v. Schreiber Implement Co.
Decision Date | 16 April 1906 |
Citation | 12 Idaho 280,85 P. 921 |
Parties | ELMER R. DEWEY et al., Respondents, v. SCHREIBER IMPLEMENT COMPANY, Appellant |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURTS-LIENS AND MORTGAGES-ACTIONS AT LAW-COURTS OF RECORD-LAW AND EQUITY-AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3841, REVISED STATUTES VOID.
1. Under the organic act of the territory of Idaho from its passage to December 13, 1870, the probate courts of the territory of Idaho had no jurisdiction to hear and determine civil cases, but had original jurisdiction in all matters of probate, settlement of estates of deceased persons and appointment of guardians. On the thirteenth day of December 1870, Congress passed an act giving to the probate courts of Idaho territory, in addition to their probate jurisdiction jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil cases wherein the debt or damage claimed did not exceed the sum of $500 exclusive of interest, and jurisdiction in criminal cases arising under the laws of the territory that did not require the intervention of a grand jury.
2. Under the provisions of section 21 of article 5 of the state constitution probate courts are given original jurisdiction in all matters of probate, settlement of estates of deceased persons and appointment of guardians, and also jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil cases wherein the debt or damage claimed does not exceed the sum of $500 exclusive of interest, and concurrent jurisdiction with justices of the peace in criminal cases.
3. The civil cases referred to in said section are such cases as are required to be settled in actions at law, and do not include suits in equity for the foreclosure of liens or mortgages on real estate.
4. Probate courts are courts of record only in matters of probate, settlement of estates of deceased persons and the appointment of guardians, and are not courts of record in proceedings in civil and criminal actions.
5. While by the provisions of section 1, article 5 of the state constitution the distinctions between actions at law and suits in equity and the forms of such actions and suits are prohibited, that does not abolish the rules of law and equity.
6. The legislative act approved February 27, 1903 (Sess. Laws, p 94), amending the ninth subdivision of section 3841, Revised Statutes, wherein it extends the jurisdiction of the probate court to try and determine actions to enforce mechanics' and laborers' liens and mortgages and other liens upon real property, held, unconstitutional and void.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District for Latah County. Hon. Edgar C. Steele, Judge.
Action to foreclose laborers' liens. Judgment for the plaintiffs. Reversed.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions. Costs in favor of the appellant.
S. S. Denning and George G. Pickett, for Appellant.
The provision in Session Laws of Idaho of 1903, page 94, extending to probate courts jurisdiction to foreclose real and personal mortgages, and also all liens up to an amount of $ 500, confers, on the said court, general equity jurisdiction, and is unconstitutional. (Idaho Const., art. 5. secs. 20, 21; Idaho Rev. Stats. 1887, sec. 3841, subd. 9; People v. Durrell, 1 Idaho 44; Moore v. Koubly, 1 Idaho 55; Ferris v. Higley, 20 Wall. 375, 22 L.Ed. 383; Clayton v. Utah 132 U.S. 632, 33 L.Ed. 455, 10 S.Ct. 190; Perea v. Berela, 5 N. Mex. 458, 23 P. 766; Perea v. Berela, 6 N. Mex. 239, 27 P. 507; Marshall v. Marshall. 11 Colo. App. 505, 53 P. 617; McCray v. Baker, 3 Wyo. 192, 18 P. 749; Wetz v. Eliot, 4 Okla. 618, 51 P. 657; Sess. Laws, 1905, p. 28; Rev. Stats., sec. 4666 subds. 15; secs. 4668-4675; Locknane v. Martin, 1 McCahon (Kan.), 60; Dewey v. Dyer, 1 McCahon (Kan.), 77; Mayberry v. Kelley, 1 Kan. 116; Bean v. Given, 5 Idaho 774, 5 P. 987.)
The father of the constitution intended to adopt, and did adopt. subdivision 9 of section 3841, Revised Statutes, as being the limit of the civil jurisdiction of probate courts conferred by section 21 of article 5 of the constitution, and as it had been interpreted both by the supreme court and the legislature of the territory. Congress expressly withheld chancery powers and the constitution never intended to confer it. (Christensen v. Hollingsworth, 6 Idaho 87, 96 Am. St. Rep. 256, 53 P. 211; Quayle v. Glenn, 6 Idaho 549, 57 P. 308.)
Forney & Moore and W. N. Morgan, for Respondents.
Instead of restricting the jurisdiction of the probate courts, the object of the framers of the constitution was to leave the jurisdiction open, so that it might be enlarged when deemed necessary by the legislature. When a purpose or a prior law is continued, usually its words are continued, and an omission of the words implies an omission of the purpose. (Pirie v. Chicago Title Co., 182 U.S. 438, 45 L.Ed. 1171, 21 S.Ct. 906.)
The supreme court of Colorado, under a constitutional provision similar to ours, has uniformly held that the legislature could confer equity jurisdiction on the county courts. (Arnett v. Berg, 18 Colo. App. 341, 71 P. 636.)
This action was brought in the probate court of Latah county, to foreclose two laborers' liens against the appellant Jones, who was the employer, upon the same crop of grain. The other appellants were interpleaded as defendants. The complaint contained the usual allegations of a complaint in this kind of an action. The appellant Jones appeared and demurred, and his demurrer being overruled, made no further appearance in the case. The respondents, Miller and Mannering, did not appear, and the appellant, the Schreiber Implement Company, answered and put in issue the material allegations of the complaint, and for an affirmative defense they denied the jurisdiction of the probate court to hear and determine an action for the foreclosure of laborers' liens, and also that the claim of the respondent Brewster was fraudulent. Other matters of affirmative defense were set up but it is not necessary to state them here. After a trial of the case, the court entered judgment and decree foreclosing said laborers' liens. The appeal is from the judgment, and the main question for decision involves the jurisdiction of the probate court to hear and determine equity suits foreclosing liens upon real estate and the constitutionality of an act approved the twenty-seventh day of February, 1903 (Sess. Laws, p. 94), section 3841 of the Revised Statutes, relating to the jurisdiction of probate courts. Prior to that amendment it is not contended that the probate court had equity jurisdiction to hear and determine equity cases. In order to determine this question we shall trace the jurisdiction of our probate courts during our existence as a territory and state. The organic act was the constitution of the territory up to the time Idaho was admitted as a state. Prior to December 13, 1870, the probate courts of the territory of Idaho had no jurisdiction to hear and determine civil cases, but on that date Congress passed an act giving to probate courts, in addition to their probate jurisdiction, jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil cases wherein the debt or damage claimed did not exceed the sum of $ 500, exclusive of interest, and jurisdiction in criminal cases arising under the laws of the territory that did not require the intervention of a grand jury. In that act of Congress it is also provided as follows: "That they (probate courts) shall not have jurisdiction in any matter in controversy when the title, tenure or right to the peaceable possession of land may be in dispute or in chancery or divorce cases." That act of Congress continued in force and defined the jurisdiction of probate courts up to the time of Idaho's admission as a state. We will observe here the territorial legislature passed an act conferring appellate jurisdiction upon the probate courts in civil cases, and in Moore v. Koubly, 1 Idaho 55, the supreme court of the territory held said act in conflict with the organic act of the territory and void. The opinion in that case is an interesting one and holds that the probate courts of the territory of Idaho as established by the organic act were tribunals of limited jurisdiction, and that the name or terms by which those courts are designated have a clearly defined or wellknown meaning in our jurisprudence. And the nature and scope of authority possessed by the probate courts are well understood by the name of those courts, and it is there stated, "And yet no one would contend for a moment that because the legislature are not inhibited by express terms, therefore they may confer, for instance, chancery powers upon justices' courts." And the conclusion reached in this case was that when Congress used the terms by which they designated the probate courts, they intended to and did use those terms by which such courts were denominated with reference to their well-known and uniformly accepted definition, and they intended to confer upon and invest these courts,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Neil v. Public Utilities Commission of State of Idaho
... ... Our ... court adhered to this doctrine in Dewey v. Schreiber ... Implement Co., 12 Idaho 280, 85 P. 921, wherein it held ... that an act of the ... ...
-
State ex rel. Peterson v. Dunlap
... ... upon estates not being probated in his county. ( Dewey v ... Schreiber Implement Co., 12 Idaho 280, 85 P. 921.) ... George ... H. Smith and ... ...
-
City of Pocatello v. Murray
... ... 67; Coleman v. Jaggers , 12 Idaho ... 125, 118 Am. St. 207, 85 P. 894; Dewey v. Schreiber Imp ... Co. , 12 Idaho 280, 85 P. 921.) ... The ... judgment and order of ... ...
-
Chase's Estate, In re
...settlement of estates, and appointment of guardians, Wilson v. Fackrell, 54 Idaho 515, 34 P.2d 409. This Court in Dewey v. Schreiber Implement Co., 12 Idaho 280, 85 P. 921, 922, initially announced such rule in holding a legislative enactment to be unconstitutional and void which attempted ......