Maxwell v. Collins
| Decision Date | 24 November 1856 |
| Parties | Maxwell v. Collins |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Wayne Court of Common Pleas.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded.
J. B Julian, for appellant.
J. S Newman and J. P. Siddall, for appellee.
Maxwell sued Collins, upon an account, before a justice of the peace of Wayne county. Collins was a resident of Montgomery, and on a temporary visit to Wayne county. Judgment against Collins before the justice. On appeal to the Common Pleas, Collins denied the jurisdiction, over him, of the Court in Wayne county, on the ground that he was sued out of his township.
He relied for the maintenance of his position, upon the section of the statutes, (2 R. S. p. 453, s. 13,) [1] providing that no person shall be sued before any justice except in the township where he resides. The Court below held that he had established his position, and rendered judgment in his favor.
We think the court made a mistake. We think that section, considered in connection with the others on the same subject, should be construed as relating to the township where the plaintiff resides when suit is brought in the county of his residence. The object of the statute was, as we all recollect from the history of its passage, to prevent justices at the county seat of a county, from engrossing the principal business at the expense of the justices of the other townships. The people of the whole county, in most cases, trade most and are oftenest at, the county seat, and hence, were there mostly caught and sued.
The statute does not interfere with the common-law right of suing in transitory actions, except where the suit is against a resident of the county. It was never meant that if a debtor came into this State from an adjoining State he could not be sued here before a justice. Yet, if the statute is to be interpreted in its broadest sense, such would be its effect. It must receive a more limited construction--one in accordance with its spirit and intention.
It is a settled rule of interpretation of statutes, that the application of the words of a single statute may be enlarged or restrained to bring the operation of the act within the intention of the legislature, when violence will not be done by such interpretation to the language of the statute. Murphy v. Barlow, 5 Ind. 230.--If a man goes from Montgomery to Wayne county and purchases horses or bills of goods, promising to pay for them before leaving town, but does not, we see no reason why, if he return there at a subsequent day, the debt not being paid, he should not be there sued for it, as, also, if he came there a debtor from a foreign State. This being the case, we need not inquire as to the waiver of the question of jurisdiction here by appearance [2].
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded.
---------
Notes:
[1] Section 13, 2 R. S. p. 453, provides that "No person shall be sued before any justice out of the township where he resides, except as hereinafter specified unless such suit is commenced by a capias ad respondendum, or where there shall be no justice competent to act in such township."
Section 9, 2 R. S. p. 451, enacts that, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial