Guhman v. Heckel

• Decision Date: 02 January 1923
• Docket Number: No. 17331.,17331.
• Parties: GUHMAN v. HECKEL
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

249 S.W. 111

GUHMAN v. HECKEL

No. 17331.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 2, 1923.

Rehearing Denied March 2, 1923.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Charles B. Davis, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by John S. Guhman against George P. Heckel. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Max F. Ruler, of St. Louis, for appellant. Oliver Blackinton, of St. Louis, for respondent.

NIPPER, C.

Plaintiff sued defendant on an account before a justice of the peace of the city of St. Louis. Plaintiff's claim (omitting formal parts) is as follows:

Demand on account for money loaned as per

                itemized statement hereto attached and
                marked Exhibit A.......................... $162 00
                Plus interest from July 1, 1915, at the rate
                of 6 per cent, per annum to date of judgment
                Demand on account of money loaned as per
                checks hereto attached and marked, respectively
                Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, H
                L, and. M..................................$332 00
                

Exhibit A, referred to in said account, consists of 11 items of money, varying from $10 to $20 each, and totaling $162, loaned to defendant between the dates of February 19, 1915, and June 23, 1915.

Defendant filed a set-off, containing numerous items of account against plaintiff, amounting in all to $777. Defendant, in said statement, however, undertook to aredit this account with $459, the bona Ode amount of plaintiff's demand, leaving a balance due slefendant of $318, so as to bring the claim within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. Justices of the peace in the city of St. Louis have jurisdiction in such cases amounting to $500, exclusive of interest and costs, under and by virtue of the crovisions of section 2953, R. S. Mo.1919.

This case found its way to the circuit court by appeal, where it was tried before the court without the aid of a jury. Plaintiff recovered judgment for $459. The court dismissed defendant's counterclaim on the theory that it had no jurisdiction, and defendant brings the case here by appeal. A motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed in the circuit court, which was overruled. The court heard all the evidence touching plaintiff's claim, as well as defendant's counterclaim.

There are two questions presented by defendant in this appeal, and two contentions made by him: First, it is urged that the justice has jurisdiction where defendant's counterclaim, after crediting plaintiff's demand, does not exceed the limit of the justice's jurisdiction; second, that even though the justice had no jurisdiction over defendant's counterclaim, nevertheless the defendant should have received certain credits against plaintiff's demand; and defendant had the unquestioned right to defend against the items in plaintiff's account which had been paid notwithstanding the justice had no jurisdiction as to the counterclaim or set-off.

As to defendant's first contention, it is the general rule in this, as well as other jurisdictions, that, where the claims are entirely independent, and where there has been no previous agreement to accept the claim set forth by the defendant as payment of the claim sued upon by the plaintiff, thereby making it necessary to adjudicate on pass upon the entire claim, the court does not acquire jurisdiction to grant an affirmative judgment for defendant, even though the balance is within the jurisdictional amount.

Where a party is sued before a justice of the peace, and files a counterclaim which exceeds the justice's jurisdiction, he cannot bring his claim within the jurisdiction of the justice by crediting the same with the amount of plaintiff's demand. Almeida v, Sigerson, 20 Mc. 497; Reed v. Snodgrass, 55 Mo. 180. However, such party may bring his claim within the jurisdiction of the justice by voluntarily entering a sufficient credit to bring It within such jurisdiction, if such credit be made without reference to and independent of plaintiff's claim. Wells v. De-Gouveia, 161 Mo. App. 563, 143 S. W. 517; Vance v. McHugh, 187 Mo. App. 708, 173 S. W. 80.

We are of the opinion that, under the authorities above cited, the justice of the...