Hugheston Gas Coal Corp. v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 24 September 1935
• Docket Number: 8160.
• Citation: Hugheston Gas Coal Corp. v. Hamilton, 116 W.Va. 450, 181 S.E. 549 (W. Va. 1935)
• Parties: HUGHESTON GAS COAL CORPORATION v. HAMILTON, Justice of the Peace, et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

181 S.E. 549

116 W.Va. 450

HUGHESTON GAS COAL CORPORATION v. HAMILTON, Justice of the Peace, et al.

No. 8160.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

September 24, 1935

Submitted September 10, 1935.

Syllabus by the Court.

1.Matter pleadable as res judicata does not, as such constitute sufficient showing to justify the granting of the writ of prohibition.

2.In an application for a writ of prohibition, the question whether several judgments rendered by a justice of the peace were all based upon a single indivisible demand exceeding in amount the jurisdiction of the justice does not depend upon proof offered before the justice in one or more of the cases in which the judgments were rendered.

3.Where no one of several judgments rendered by a justice of the peace against the same defendant and in favor of the same plaintiff exceeds in amount the jurisdiction of the justice although in the aggregate the amounts of such judgments do exceed such jurisdictional amount, if it is not made clearly to appear that the judgments were all based upon a single indivisible demand that exceeded the amount of the justice's jurisdiction, the writ of prohibition will not be awarded to prevent the enforcement of the several judgments as constituting a usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the justice.

Prohibition proceeding by the Hugheston Gas Coal Corporation against H Pete Hamilton, Justice of the Peace of Marion County, and another.

Writ denied.

E. M. Showalter, of Fairmont, for petitioner.

A. B. Hodges, of Charleston, for respondents.

KENNA Judge.

The Hugheston Gas Coal Corporation brought this proceeding in prohibition against H. Pete Hamilton, justice of the peace of Marion county, and Charles Hodges.The petition alleges that Charles Hodges had, for a number of years, been an employee of the petitioner in the capacity of bookkeeper and auditor under a contract of employment at a stipulated salary; that he resigned January 2, 1935, and that at that time the petitioner was in arrears in the payment of his salary; that on the 31st day of January, 1935, Hodges brought nine separate suits against the petitioner before Hamilton, eight of them for $175 and the other for $295; that on the 9th day of February, 1935, the return day of all of the summonses, petitioner appeared and moved the justice to dismiss the several actions on the ground that the justice was without jurisdiction to try them, because the aggregate amount involved in all the suits was one indivisible claim exceeding the amount of which the justice had jurisdiction, and that the motions were overruled; that on the 18th day of February, 1935, the case brought for $295 was tried before the justice and a judgment rendered for the sum of $195; that thereafter the petitioner filed its plea of res judicata in the other eight suits, but that, notwithstanding the pleas, which set up the judgment in the first suit, the justice rendered judgment against the petitioner in all of the remaining suits.The petition alleges that the claim of Hodges was one indivisible claim for arrearages in salary over a period of years, and therefore that the petitioner was entitled to have its motion to dismiss all of the cases sustained, since the indivisible claim exceeded the jurisdiction of the justice, and, if not, that it was entitled to have a finding in its favor on its several pleas of res judicata.

Hodges answered the petition, stating that the salary sought to be recovered in his suits was for the period from March 9, 1934, to December 31, 1934, and that the salary was at the rate of $175 a month.His first suit covered salary from March 9, 1934, to May 1, 1934; the remaining suits being for one month's salary each.The replication to this answer states that in July, 1934, it was agreed that Hodges was to receive a salary of $125 a month, $50 each month to be paid by the Mountain City Drug Company.

The answer of Hamilton states that no evidence was offered by the defendant in the eight suits remaining to be disposed of after the trial of the first, and that therefore there was nothing for him to do but to render judgments.Hodges filed a rejoinder denying and replying generally to each of the allegations in the petitioner's special replication.

In addition to the foregoing pleadings, a stipulation of fact is filed here by which it is agreed that Hodges was in the employ of the petitioner as bookkeeper and auditor under a contract made in the usual method as to such employment, with a stipulated monthly salary, varied in amount from time to time, and payable at the end of each month, and that there was no agreement between the parties to the...