Horton v. Elliott

• Decision Date: 19 June 1890
• Citation: 90 Ala. 480,8 So. 103
• Parties: HORTON v. ELLIOTT ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

8 So. 103

90 Ala. 480

HORTON v. ELLIOTT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 19, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Shelby county; LEROY F. BOX, Judge.

An action of trespass, brought by Hardy J. Horton against A. M Elliott and others to recover for the wrongful taking of certain property. Defendants justified their taking under a judgment and writ of seizure, issued from a justice of the peace's court, and offered such judgment in evidence, but plaintiff objected. The court overruled the objection and plaintiff duly excepted. The plaintiff brings this appeal and assigns as error the ruling of the lower court on the evidence.

A P. Longshore, for appellant.

CLOPTON J.

The only assignment of error we deem necessary to consider goes to the admission in evidence of a judgment rendered by W. H Taylor, as a justice of the peace, in favor of one of the defendants against the plaintiff. The judgment and writ of seizure issued thereon were introduced by defendants in justification of the taking and carrying away the property, for which alleged trespass the action is brought by appellant. From the recitals of the judgment and the evidence, it appears that it was rendered in the precinct in which the cause of action arose, by Taylor, who was a justice of the peace in another, but adjoining, precinct. The authority to render the judgment is based on the fact that A. M. Elliott, who was a notary public having the jurisdiction of a justice in the precinct in which the cause of action arose, was incompetent to try the case by reason of relationship to the plaintiff therein. It further appears, and the court judicially knows, that there was a justice in the precinct other than Elliott whose competency is admitted. The question is whether a justice of an adjoining precinct had jurisdiction and power to hear and determine a case and render judgment in another precinct, when only one of two justices in such precinct is incompetent to try the case. The judgment having been rendered September 2, 1886, the question must be determined by the statutes as found in the Code of 1876.

Section 26 of article 6 of the constitution declares: "There shall be elected by the qualified electors of each precinct of the counties not exceeding two justices of the peace and one constable. Such justices shall have jurisdiction in all civil cases wherein the amount in controversy does not exceed one hundred dollars, except in cases of libel, slander assault and battery, and ejectment." In pursuance of the constitution, the statute also declares: "Within the limits of every election precinct are two justices of the peace elected as hereinbefore prescribed," that is, by the qualified voters of the precinct. The original jurisdiction of certain civil actions conferred upon justices within their respective counties is, by the terms of the...