Dewey v. Schreiber Implement Co.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
• Writing for the Court: SULLIVAN, J.
• Citation: 12 Idaho 280,85 P. 921
• Decision Date: 16 April 1906
• Parties: ELMER R. DEWEY et al., Respondents, v. SCHREIBER IMPLEMENT COMPANY, Appellant

85 P. 921

12 Idaho 280

ELMER R. DEWEY et al., Respondents,
v.
SCHREIBER IMPLEMENT COMPANY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 16, 1906

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.

[12 Idaho 281]

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.)

SULLIVAN, J. Stockslager, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.

OPINION

[12 Idaho 282] SULLIVAN, J.

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...