McClain v. Williams

• Decision Date: 21 May 1898
• Citation: 75 N.W. 391,11 S.D. 60
• Parties: McCLAIN, Plaintiff and respondent, v. WILLIAMS, Defendant and appellant.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

11 S.D. 60

75 N.W. 391

McCLAIN, Plaintiff and respondent,

v.

WILLIAMS, Defendant and appellant. South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from Circuit Court, Hutchinson County, SD Hon. E. G. Smith, Judge Motion to dismiss denied. W. J. Hooper Attorneys for appellant. Wellington Brown Attorneys for respondent. Opinion filed May 21, 1898 (See 10 SD 332, 73 NW 72)

CORSON, P. J.

Respondent moved to dismiss the appea in this case upon the ground that, under the provisions of Chapter 55, Laws 1897, no appeal lies from the judgment ap pealed from. The motion was granted, and the opinion on the motion is reported in McClain v. Williams, 43 LRA 287. A petition for a rehearing was filed, calling the attention of the conrt to Section 3.1, Article 5 of the state constitution, which was not considered by the court on the motion to dismiss. A rehearing was granted, am the question of constitutionality of the act of 1897, in view o the provisions of section 34 will now be considered. The section reads as follows:

“All laws relating to courts shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the state, and the the organization, jurisdiction, power, proceedings and practice of all the courts of the same class or grade, so far as regulated by law, and the force and effect of the proceedings, judgments and decrees of such courts severally shall be uniform; provided however, that the legislature may classify the county courts according to the population of the respective counties and fix the jurisdiction and salary of the judges thereof accordingly.”

Appellant contends that the act of 1897, being expressly limited to appeals from judgments of the circuit court, and not including county courts, which in two counties—Minnehaha and Lawrence—have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court in a large class of cases is, clearly in conflict with the provisions of Section 34, above quoted. He argues that parties living in the two counties named still have the right to appeal from any judgment rendered in the county courts of those counties, without regard to amount of judgment or value of property claimed while in the same class of cases, tried and determined in the circuit court of those and other counties of the state, parties are denied the right of appeal unless the judgment or value of the property exceeds a fixed sum. He further contends that circuit and county courts, so far as their jurisdiction is concurrent, are within the meaning of the constitution, courts of the same class or grade, and that all laws relating to such courts must be general and uniform throughout the state. The respondent insists that the term, “courts of the same class or grade,” should be construed as applicable only to each class of courts provided by the constitution, and not to two or more classes named. We are inclined to the view presented by appellant. By Section 6, Chapter 78. Laws 1890, county courts had conferred upon them concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts in a large class of cases therein specified, limited to the amount therein specified; and by Section 11 of the same act concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts, in all appeals from justice courts, was conferred upon them. These sections are still in force in the two counties named; and hence, in a large class of cases, both the county and circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction in those two counties. It would seem clear, therefore, that, in so far as they have such concurrent...