Moore v. Perrot
| Decision Date | 12 January 1891 |
| Citation | 2 Wash. 1,25 P. 906 |
| Parties | MOORE v. PERROT. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, King county.
John Trumbull and F. A. Clark, for appellant.
Johnson & Moody, for appellee.
This action was commenced before a justice of the peace on the 9th day of November, 1889. On the 18th day of November the justice rendered judgment against the defendant for the full amount demanded,-$240. The proclamation of the president declaring the state of Washington admitted into the Union was issued November 11, 1889. From that date the provisions of the constitution were in force, (Const. art 27, § 16,) and on the following Monday, November 18th, the terms of all officers began. On Monday, November 18th therefore, when the justice of the peace rendered this judgment, his jurisdiction of the subject-matter-that is, of an action wherein the amount in controversy was $100 or more-had ceased, and he was powerless to take any further step in the case, except to transfer it to the superior court. Id. art. 4, §§ 6, 10; and article 27, § 5. We were strongly urged upon the hearing of this cause to hold that justices of the peace in this state still have jurisdiction of actions at law for the recovery of money or property in the sum of $300. But this does not seem to be founded in any substantial reason. Before the constitution became operative, there existed in the Territory of Washington, under the organic act, courts of justices of the peace, whose jurisdiction in certain civil cases was fixed at $300. But upon the admission of the state, as was said in Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, the territorial government was displaced and abrogated, every part of it, and no jurisdiction thereafter existed within her limits except that derived from state authority. Therefore, except for those portions of the constitution which continue in force those laws of the territory which were not repugnant to the constitution, there would have been, upon the incoming of the state, no justices' courts whatever. The justices courts were thus continued, however, and the only matter to be decided is whether the statute which gave them partial jurisdiction of cases involving $300 was in any manner repugnant to the constitution. The portion of that instrument relating to superior courts gives them original jurisdiction in all cases in which the demand, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to $100 and also jurisdiction in all cases whatever in which jurisdiction shall not have been by law vested exclusively in some other court. Likewise other sections of the same article provide that part of the judicial power of the state shall be vested in justices of the peace, with power in the legislature to determine their number and prescribe their jurisdiction, provided that such jurisdiction shall not trench upon the jurisdiction of the superior or other courts of record. Now, the previously existing statute stands as the action of the legislature, and there are justices of the peace with jurisdiction prescribed, and the question is whether, by continuing to take jurisdiction of cases where the demand or value of the property in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peltier
...provided it vests authority over such matters in some other court, presumably a court of limited jurisdiction. See Moore v. Perrot, 2 Wash. 1, 4, 25 P. 906 (1891) (“The language of the constitution is not that the superior courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, but it gives to the superi......
-
Banowsky v. Backstrom
...18, 1889, the day on which the court died and its cases were all "continued" to the new justice of the peace courts. Moore v. Perrot, 2 Wash. 1, 2-3, 25 P. 906 (1891). The problem was that the old territorial justice of the peace had jurisdiction over matters up to $300; the new state justi......
-
Ralph v. State Dep't of Natural Res.
...legislature to carve out from that jurisdiction the jurisdiction of ... any other inferior courts that may be created.” Moore v. Perrott, 2 Wash. 1, 4, 25 P. 906 (1891) ; see Posey, 174 Wash.2d at 136, 272 P.3d 840. In Young, we explained that article IV, section 6 prevents the legislature ......
-
State v. Peltier, 68942-8-I
...matters, provided it vests authority over such matters in some other court, presumably a court of limited jurisdiction. SeeMoore v. Perrott, 2 Wash. 1, 4, 25 P.906 (1891) ("The language of the constitution is not that the superior courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, but it gives to th......