Merfield v. Burkett
| Decision Date | 12 November 1892 |
| Citation | 20 S.W. 523,56 Ark. 592 |
| Parties | MERFIELD v. BURKETT |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court, JAMES M. PITTMANN, Judge.
Judgment reversed and cause dismissed.
E. B Wall for appellants.
1. The jurisdiction of justices is defined by sec. 40, art. 7 const. 1874, and the justice had jurisdiction. See 40 Ark 124; 43 id. 375; Endlich, Int. St. sec. 535; Mansf. Dig. sec. 3061-6, 4128-33; Endlich, Int. St. sec. 157; Cooley, Torts, p. 629, 650-4, (ed. 1880).
2. But if the justice had no jurisdiction, the circuit court acquired none on appeal. But the circuit court had original jurisdiction, (43 Ark. 375,) and proceeded under sec. 3964, Mansf. Dig. No question of jurisdiction was raised, (52 Ark. 318,) and it is too late to raise it in this court. Endlich, sec. 157; Freeman, Judg. sec. 126; 55 Ark. 200.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court against the appellants for costs in a cause commenced in the court of a justice of the peace by appellants against the appellee, as constable, for making a false return upon an execution in his hands in favor of the appellants against one Zack. Thomas, and for neglect of duty by the constable in failing to make the plaintiffs' debt out of property of said Thomas levied on by the constable, the amount of the debt being, as shown by plaintiffs' account filed with the justice, $ 211.75, exclusive of interest and costs.
This was intended to be a summary proceeding under the statute for non-feasance of the officer in not making sale of the property he had levied upon by virtue of the execution in his hands in favor of the appellant, and which it appears was of sufficient value to have satisfied the plaintiff's debt. The question of jurisdiction is the only question we determine in this case. Had the justice of the peace jurisdiction of the cause? If he had no jurisdiction, the circuit court acquired none upon appeal from the justice.
Justices of the peace have jurisdiction, exclusive of the circuit court, in all matters of contract where the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of one hundred dollars, excluding interest, and concurrent jurisdiction in matters of contract, where the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of three hundred dollars, exclusive of interest, and in all matters of damage to personal property, where the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of one hundred dollars. Sec 40, art. 7, Const.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayar v. Poe
...Agency, § 539; 68 Ark. 440; 146 U.S. 674; 114 F. 290; 96 N.Y. 323; 113 U.S. 457; 35 Ark. 622; 39 Ark. 463; 52 Ark. 240; 62 Ark. 360; 56 Ark. 592; 48 Ark. 301; 7 Ark. 172; 43 Ark. 197 U.S. 154. 2. The action was premature. The primary liability is on the corporation which ought to be enforce......
-
Wilson v. Young
...and the court held that it was the latter, for the reason that it was based upon no contract, either express or implied. Merfield v. Burkett, 56 Ark. 592, 20 S. W. 523. There is nothing, then, in either of these three cases, that conflicts with the view we have indicated as to the nature of......
-
Wilson v. Young
... ... held that it was the latter, for the reason that it was [58 ... Ark. 602] based upon no contract, either express or implied ... Merfield v. Burkett , 56 Ark. 592, 20 S.W ... There ... is nothing, then, in either of these three cases that ... conflicts with the ... ...
-
Adamson v. Kay
...wrong, and the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction. Bishop on Non-Contract Law, 1889 Ed., § § 4, 5; Kirby's Dig. § § 4659, 4664; 56 Ark. 592; 43 Ark. 375; Ark. 301; 103 N.Y. 242; 64 N.Y. 173; 8 O. 215; 72 Ark. 357. OPINION KIRBY, J., (after stating the facts). It is contended that the ......