Hutchinson v. Courtney
| Decision Date | 17 December 1923 |
| Parties | HUTCHINSON v. COURTNEY. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Leon County; E. C. Love, Judge.
Action by Marshall B. Courtney against S.E. Hutchinson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Jurisdictional matter considered on appeal, although not raised below. A jurisdictional matter will be considered by this court, even though the same may not be questioned by the pleadings or expressly presented.
If court below without jurisdiction, writ of error should be dismissed, even though question not raised below. If it appears from the record that the trial court is without jurisdiction to try and determine a cause, the writ of error should be dismissed, even though the question of jurisdiction is not raised.
Jurisdiction determined by actual demand in good faith or by actual damages claimed. The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the actual demand in good faith made, or by the actual damages claimed to have been sustained.
County judges' courts have original jurisdiction in controversies not exceeding $100. County judges' courts have original jurisdiction 'in all cases at law in which the demand or value of property involved shall not exceed one hundred dollars.'
Good-faith demand actually in controversy, and not amount of recovery test to determine jurisdiction. The sum in good faith demanded or actually put in controversy, and not the amount of the recovery, is the test for determining jurisdiction.
If amount under pleadings exceed $100, action properly brought in circuit court. If under the pleadings the amount recoverable exceed $100, the action is properly brought in the circuit court; there being in the county no inferior court in which the cause is cognizable.
Punitive damages allowable. Punitive damages are allowable in this jurisdiction, in actions of trespass, in addition to compensatory damages.
Verdict allowing punitive damages not excessive. Where there is basis in the pleadings and evidence for recovery in the nature of punitive damages, in addition to compensation for injury resulting from an alleged trespass upon the premises of plaintiff, and making allowance for a portion of the amount recovered as punitive damages, the verdict is not excessive which one of two rules is employed for ascertaining the amount of actual damage sustained is not material.
Myers & Myers, of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.
Fred H Davis, of Tallahassee, for defendant in error.
This is an action of trespass. The declaration, omitting formal parts, is as follows:
'That heretofore, to wit, on the 1st day of December, 1920, the said plaintiff was the owner of a valuable ornamental japonica bush, standing and growing on his premises, and of great value and beauty, as plaintiff and his agents and servants well knew, and that said defendant, by and through his agent and servant in that behalf, then and there willfully, wrongfully, and without right, and in utter disregard of the rights of plaintiff, did enter upon the premises of plaintiff, situate in Leon county, Fla., called the 'Isler Place,' and did then and there willfully cut, dig up, and remove said japonica bush from plaintiff's premises, without his consent and against his express direction, to the great damage of the plaintiff, by reason whereof plaintiff was deprived of the said japonica bush and of the ornamental value and pleasure of same about his premises, and plaintiff's lands on which said japonica bush stood were then and there greatly impaired in value by reason of said trespass; and plaintiff avers that said trespass was committed unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and without right or pretense of legal right so to do, and that, in addition to the actual damages sustained, plaintiff is entitled to recover of and from the defendant a further and additional sum as and for punitive damages against said defendant, for all of which plaintiff sues.'
Damages of $250 were claimed. No question of the legal sufficiency of the declaration was made. The plea was not guilty. Upon a trial there was a verdict for plaintiff, assessing his damages in the sum of $100. To review the judgment entered upon this verdict, writ of error was taken.
The question of the jurisdiction of the circuit court is not presented by an assignment of error, but intruded itself into the case at the oral argument. If the record discloses that the trial court was without jurisdiction to try and determine the cause, the writ of error should be dismissed, even though the question of jurisdiction was not raised. Micou v. McDonald, 55 Fla. 776, 46 So. 291; Florida Pack. & Ice Co. v. Carney, 49 Fla. 293, 38 So. 602, 111 Am. St. Rep. 95; City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College, 47 Fla. 339, 36 So. 432; McMillan v. Wiley, 45 Fla. 487, 33 So. 993. County judge's courts have original jurisdiction----
'In all cases at law in which the demand or value of property involved shall not exceed one hundred dollars.' Section 17, art. 5, Const. of Fla.
And the sum in good faith demanded or actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. City of Miami
... ... Gen. St ... Jurisdictional ... facts pleaded in good faith constitute the test of ... jurisdiction. Hutchinson v. Courtney, 86 Fla. 556, ... 98 So. 582. So whether the proposed form of bonded debt, or ... the proposed form of certificate of indebtedness, be ... ...
-
Young v. Cobbs
...and wanton. Cato v. Silling, 137 W.Va. 694, 73 S.E.2d 731; Brown v. Grenz, 127 Mont. 49, 257 P.2d 246. And see Hutchinson v. Courtney, 86 Fla. 556, 98 So. 582, 583, recognizing that punitive damages are allowable in actions of trespass. But we do not think the defendant's actions, though wi......
-
State v. Peeler
...of the court to proceed to try the accused must be tested by what appears in the allegations of the information. See Hutchinson v. Courtney, 86 Fla. 556, 98 So. 582, where this rule was applied to a civil case. See, Rouse v. State, 44 Fla. 148, 32 So. 784, 1 Ann. Cas. 317, where an informat......
- Zewadski v. Barksdale