James v. Kennedy

• Decision Date: 10 June 1939
• Citation: 129 S.W.2d 215
• Parties: JAMES v. KENNEDY.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

129 S.W.2d 215

JAMES v. KENNEDY.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

June 10, 1939.

Error to Circuit Court, Davidson County; E. F. Langford, Judge.

Action to recover damages sustained in automobile accident by S. K. James against B. L. Kennedy. To review a judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing plaintiff's appeal from a judgment for defendant in Court of General Sessions, the plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

George Pullen Jackson, Jr., of Nashville, for plaintiff in error.

Baxter Cato and J. G. Lackey, Jr., both of Nashville, for defendant in error.

GREEN, Chief Justice.

From a judgment of the circuit court dismissing his appeal to that court from the Court of General Sessions, the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

The Court of General Sessions for Davidson County was established by chapter 12 of the Private Acts of 1937, taking over the jurisdiction and authority formerly exercised by justices of the peace in that county in civil and criminal cases, suits and actions. This statute was considered and its validity sustained in Hancock v. Davidson County, 171 Tenn. 420, 104 S.W. 2d 824.

The present suit was brought in the Court of General Sessions to recover damages for injuries to person and property "under $500" growing out of an automobile accident. There was a judgment for defendant in that court. The plaintiff was granted an appeal to the Circuit Court of Davidson County and the case was there heard upon its merits before the court and a jury and a verdict for $90 returned in favor of the plaintiff. Prior to the hearing on the merits the defendant had moved the circuit court to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Whether the defendant had previously to this motion demanded a jury, or otherwise recognized the jurisdiction of the circuit court, is a matter about which there is some controversy. We do not find it necessary to go into this.

Section 6 of the Act creating the Davidson County Court of General Sessions provides that "no appeal shall be granted from a judgment dismissing a suit or judgment which does not exceed the amount of $50.00, exclusive of interest and costs; however, a new trial of said excepted causes may be had and with as full rights as if on appeal to the Circuit Court, provided a petition for a writ of certiorari showing merit and sworn to has been filed with the Circuit Court within ten days from the date of the judgment complained of, and the writ has been granted."

Construing the quoted language in Cook v. Guill, 128 S.W.2d 345, 346, opinion filed June 11, 1938, this court said:

"We think it fairly appears that the intent of the excepting language was to limit review to the method of petitions for certiorari in all cases in which either (1) the judgment is for the defendant, or (2) is for a sum less than $50 and costs. * * * The Legislature might well and reasonably find justification for restricting this limitation of the right of appeal to cases in which, upon a hearing in this Court of original jurisdiction, it is adjudged that the plaintiff is entitled to recover (1) nothing at all, or (2) a sum less than $50, upon the assumption that justice has probably been done, and might lawfully enact that to secure the right of review a showing of merits should be presented by petition for certiorari."

We adhere to this construction of the Act of 1937. The obvious purpose of this particular provision was to relieve the Circuit Courts of Davidson County of appeals in trivial cases and in cases not quite so trivial apparently, but, upon investigation by a competent tribunal, found to be without merit.

The right of appeal is wholly of constitutional or statutory origin and was unknown to the common law. Where the Constitution does not define specific limits of appellate jurisdiction, this may be abridged or extended by the Legislature as public policy may require. Chattanooga v....