Houser v. McKennon

Decision Date31 December 1872
Citation60 Tenn. 287
PartiesJ. F. HOUSER v. J. T. M. McKENNON.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

FROM MAURY.

Appeal from the Circuit Court. WM. P. MARTIN, Circuit Judge.

N. R. WILKES for Houser.

A. C. HICKEY for McKennon.

DEADERICK, Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court.

McKennon obtained a judgment, upon an open account against Houser, for $252.50, upon a warrant in debt under $500, before S. D. Herndon, a Justice of the Peace of Maury County. Houser brought the case into the Circuit Court, where, on leave granted, he amended his petition contesting the jurisdiction of the Justice to render a judgment, and entered a motion to quash the proceedings.

Motion to dismiss the petition and amended petitions were made and overruled.

The Court refused to quash the proceeding, and submitted the cause to a jury, who gave a verdict against Houser for $39.50, and the cause is brought into this Court by writ of error.

The Justice's judgment was absolutely void, and it may well be resisted whenever an attempt is made to enforce it.

The defendant does not lose his right to contest it by failing to appeal; having no validity, because of want of jurisdiction, the defendant may bring it into the Circuit Court to have the proceedings quashed, without giving a reason for having failed to appeal. And it makes no difference that the excess of the judgment, over the sum of which the Justice has jurisdiction, is made up of interest, nor that the Circuit Court judgment is for a sum of which the Justice has jurisdiction. In this case the Justice's jurisdiction is limited to $250, and the judgment being for a greater sum, is void. 9 Yerg., 30; Mart. & Yerg., 240; 1 Hump., 332; 6 Cold., 32.

The judgment of the Circut Court will be reversed, and the proceedings before the Justice will be quashed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Baxter Bailey Invs. LLC v. Apl Ltd., W2015-00067-COA-R3-CV
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 21 September 2015
    ...exceed their jurisdictional limits or their subject matter jurisdiction. Harris v. Hadden, 75 Tenn. 214, 216 (1881); Houser v. McKinnon, 60 Tenn. 287, 288 (1872); Morrow v. Calloway, 8 Tenn. (1 Martin & Yer.) 240, 241 (1827).Ware, 898 S.W.2d 181, 183-84 (Tenn. 1995) (footnotes omitted). Fur......
  • Ware v. Meharry Medical College
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 24 April 1995
    ...exceed their jurisdictional limits or their subject matter jurisdiction. Harris v. Hadden, 75 Tenn. 214, 216 (1881); Houser v. McKinnon, 60 Tenn. 287, 288 (1872); Morrow v. Calloway, 8 Tenn. (1 Martin & Yer.) 240, 241 B. The concern about the quality of justice dispensed by the justice of t......
  • Manning v. Feidelson
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 17 February 1940
    ...v. Halliday, 106 Tenn. 607, 61 S.W. 1025, 53 L.R.A. 477, 82 Am.St.Rep. 902; Galyon v. Gilmore, 93 Tenn. 671, 28 S.W. 301; Houser v. McKennon, 60 Tenn. 287, 1 Baxt. 287. Objection for want of such jurisdiction can made at any time and is fatal whenever presented. Agee v. Dement, 20 Tenn. 332......
  • Salitan v. Dashney
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 31 December 1959
    ...Byers, supra; Jones v. Jones, 1832, 14 N.C. 360; Gregg v. Wooden, 1856, 7 Ind. 499; Feillet v. Engler, 1857, 8 Cal. 76, 77; Houser v. McKennon, 1873, 60 Tenn. 287; and Bud Hoard Co. v. F. Berg & Co., 1929, 137 Okl. 16, 278 P. In determining whether the amount claimed in the complaint exceed......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT