Matheny v. Bank of Nashville

• Decision Date: 26 September 1916
• Docket Number: 6525.
• Citation: Matheny v. Bank of Nashville, 61 Okla. 123, 160 P. 92, 1916 OK 800 (Okla. 1916)
• Parties: MATHENY v. BANK OF NASHVILLE.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

160 P. 92

61 Okla. 123, 1916 OK 800

MATHENY v. BANK OF NASHVILLE.

No. 6525.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

September 26, 1916

Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1916.

Syllabus by the Court.

In an action in replevin in the justice's court, where the amount in controversy exceeds $200, the court has no jurisdiction thereof.

In determining the jurisdiction of the justice's court in an action of replevin, the value of the property and the damages sought to be recovered for its detention must be considered together, as fixing the amount in controversy.

The jurisdiction of the county court upon appeal from a replevin action in the justice's court must be determined by the laws in force applicable to the jurisdiction of a justice's court, as the county court upon appeal can acquire no greater jurisdiction than that possessed by the justice's court.

Remittitur made in the county court so as to reduce the amount involved within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace cannot invest the county court with jurisdiction upon an appeal from a justice's court, where the amount involved in said action exceeded the jurisdiction of the justice's court.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3. Error from County Court, Alfalfa County; F. M. Gustin, Judge.

Action by the Bank of Nashville against P. M. Matheny. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Dismissed.

Titus & Talbot, of Cherokee, for plaintiff in error.

Webster Wilder, of Cherokee, for defendant in error.

HOOKER C.

In January, 1912, the Bank of Nashville commenced this action of replevin in the city of Cherokee, Alfalfa county, Okl against plaintiff in error, P. M. Matheny, whereby it sought to recover the possession of certain personal property, or if the same could not be had, the value thereof in the sum of $130, and for the further sum of $75 damages and costs. Trial was had in the justice court, and judgment rendered in favor of the bank and against the plaintiff in error, from which an appeal was had to the county court of Alfalfa county, and on the 20th day of October, 1913, this cause was tried in said court, and judgment rendered in favor of the bank and against plaintiff in error for a return of the property or its value in the sum of $130.

There are several reasons assigned why the judgment in this case should be reversed; but, under the view that we take, it is only necessary to consider one.

It appears from an examination of the record before us that the plaintiff instituted this action in the justice's court to recover the possession of personal property or its value in the sum of $130, and for the further sum of $75 damages thus making the amount in controversy in this action $205. When the judgment was rendered in the lower court, an appeal was had to the county court, where the cause was tried de novo, and at the beginning of the trial the plaintiff in said action attempted to remit or disclaim the damages sought to be recovered here, and the cause was tried upon the remaining issue involved in said cause, to wit, the recovery of the personal property or its value.

Under section 18, art. 7, of the Constitution of this state, the office of the justice of the peace is created and its jurisdiction fixed in civil cases where the amount involved did not exceed $200 exclusive of interest and costs. It clearly appears from an examination of the record before us that the amount in controversy here was personal property of the value of $130, and damages to the extent of $75. There can be no question under the authorities but that we must consider the value of the property and the damages claimed for its detention together as constituting one sum in controversy here. The following cases are in line with this view:

In the case of Ferguson v. Byers, reported in 40 Or. 468, 67 P 1115, the Supreme Court of Oregon said:

"The statute limiting the amount in controversy is as follows: 'A justice's court has jurisdiction, but not exclusive, of the following actions: * * * (2) For the recovery of specific personal property, when the value of the property claimed and the damages for the detention do not exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00).' It will be remembered that the defendant alleged in her complaint, in the action to recover possession of the property, that the value thereof is $249, and that in consequence of the unlawful seizure and detention she sustained damage in the sum of $25, thus making the amount in controversy, in case possession of the property could not be secured, the sum of $274, which is in excess of the jurisdiction of a justice's court, and its judgment is void unless the remission by defendant's counsel of the sum of $25 removes the objection. Camp v. Wood, 10 Watts (Pa.) 118. While a diversity of judicial opinion exists as to what constitutes the amount in controversy, it is settled in this state that the sum thus involved is to be determined by the ad damnum clause of the complaint, and not by the amount of the judgment. Troy v. Hallgarth, 35 Or. 162, 57 P. 374. The defendant not having remitted any part of the damage which she claims to have sustained until the judgment for the possession of the property was rendered, it is not necessary to consider whether a party can waive a part of his claim, so as to bring it within the jurisdiction of an inferior court; for, to accomplish this result, the remitter must be made when the action is begun; otherwise jurisdiction of the

...