Hedgecock v. Davis

• Decision Date: 30 June 1870
• Citation: 64 N.C. 650
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHN P. HEDGECOCK v. HENRY DAVIS and others.

64 N.C. 650

JOHN P. HEDGECOCK

v.HENRY DAVIS and others.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1870.

The jurisdiction conferred upon Justices of the Peace by the Constitution, Art. IV, sec. 33, extends to all sums of two hundred dollars and under, exclusive of interest.

Where questions of constitutional construction are doubtful, Courts will defer to a previous decision thereupon made by the Legislature.

( Birch v. Howell, 8 Ire. 468; Moore v. Fuller, 2 Jon. 205, approved.)

CIVIL ACTION, tried before Cloud, J., at Spring Term 1870 of FORSYTHE Court.

The complaint was founded upon a note, executed by the defendants, for two hundred dollars, dated May 17, 1859, the interest upon which, after deducting certain payments, amounted to some thirty-nine dollars. The defendants demurred, for want of jutisdiction.

Judgment for the defendants, and Appeal by the plaintiff.

T. J. Wilson, for the appellant .

No counsel, contra .

PEARSON, C. J.

The Constitution confers on Justices of the Peace exclusive original jurisdiction “of all civil actions founded on contracts wherein the sum demanded shall not exceed two hundred dollars”: Art. IV, sec. 33. The question is, If the principal sum due on a note does not exceed two hundred dollars, but the value of the note exceeds that amount by reason of accumulated interest, has a Justice of the Peace jurisdiction? That depends upon the meaning of the words, “the sum demanded.”

On one side it is said that “the sum demanded” is the value of the note, and the interest makes a part of the value: Birch v. Howell, 8 Ire. 468. On the other it is said that “the sum demanded” is the principal of the note: interest follows as a mere legal incident, involving only a simple calculation, and is no part of the note. If the principal be paid, the party can have no action for the interest: Moore v. Fuller, 2 Jon. 205.

We are inclined to adopt the latter view as the true one, on several considerations:

1. The meaning of the value of a note, was fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and if it was intended to express the same idea, the same words would have been used. The use of other words tends to an inference that the idea was not the same.

2. Under the old system the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace in regard to bonds, notes and signed accounts, was limited to one hundred dollars, ““exclusive of interest.” In adopting the new system, an increase of jurisdiction was made necessary by the abolition of the County Courts, and it is raised to two hundred dollars--as much as to say, let it be doubled; and of course, “exclusive of interest,” which is a thing that is always growing; and it is not proper that the jurisdiction of a tribunal now...