Grant v. Stubblefield

• Decision Date: 22 June 1909
• Parties: GRANT v. STUBBLEFIELD.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

120 S.W. 647

138 Mo. App. 555

GRANT v. STUBBLEFIELD.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 22, 1909.

1. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (§§ 58, 84)—JURISDICTION—WAIVER.

Rev. St. 1899, § 3839 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 2128), relating to actions before a justice of the peace is the only source of jurisdiction of a justice of the peace; and where, in replevin before a justice, the record does not disclose the justice's jurisdiction by reason of the residence of either of the parties, the lack of jurisdiction is inherent, and the appearance of the parties and going to trial on the merits, either before the justice or in the circuit court, does not waive the defect.

2. REPLEVIN (§ 93)—VERDICT—FORM.

A verdict, in replevin, that at the time of the institution of the suit plaintiff was entitled to the possession of certain property, of a certain value, and that he has been damaged by the taking and detention in the sum of no dollars, is insufficient, because not responsive to the issue as to whether defendant was in possession and wrongfully detained the property.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Scott County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Action by J. Frank Grant against W. H. Stubblefield, Jr. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

S. H. Dewhirst and Frank Kelly, for appellant. H. C. O'Bryan, for respondent.

REYNOLDS, P. J.

This is an action in replevin, commenced before a justice of the peace in Moreland township, Scott county, Mo. The writ is returned as executed in Sylvania township, Scott county, and there is nothing in the record to show that the justice before whom the suit was instituted had jurisdiction of the cause. After a protracted trial in the circuit court, the jury returned a verdict in the following form "We, the jury, find at the time of the institution of this suit the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of one black colt two years old and one black colt one year old, that they are of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars, and plaintiff has been damaged by the taking and detention in the sum of no dollars."

We are obliged to reverse this case for two reasons: First, it does not appear that the action was within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace by reason of the residence of either of the parties. Whatever jurisdiction the justice had must be derived from section 3839, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 2128), and, unless the facts of jurisdiction under this section are made to appear in the case, the...