Patterson v. Freeman

• Decision Date: 21 April 1903
• Citation: 43 S.E. 904,132 N. C. 357
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: PATTERSON. v. FREEMAN et al.

43 S.E. 904

132 N. C. 357

PATTERSON.

v.FREEMAN et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 21, 1903.

JUSTICE OF PEACE—JURISDICTION—PROOF OF JUDGMENT—APPEAL—RECITAL IN JUDGMENT.

1. The judgment of a justice of the peace is not such a record that it may be given in evidence without proof of his handwriting.

2. A justice of the peace has jurisdiction of an action on a note given for a contract to convey land, the only defense being payment.

3. Recital in a judgment that it was rendered on the pleadings will govern on appeal therefrom, though the case on appeal shows this to be an inadvertence.

Appeal from Superior Court, Surry County; Bryan, Judge.

Action by M. L. Patterson against R. C. Freeman, administrator, and others. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Watson, Buxton & Watson, for appellant.

Carter & Lewellyn, for appellees.

CONNOR, J. The plaintiff alleges that he contracted in writing to convey to W. A. Jones, deceased intestate of defendant Freeman, and ancestor of the other defendants, a tract of land, the boundaries of which are set out; that, to secure the purchase money therefor, said Jones executed his promissory note, upon which he afterwards recovered judgment before a justice of the peace—said judgment, with interest, amounting to $190; that plaintiff has at all times been ready, willing, and able to perform his part of the contract; that said Jone# died, leaving but a small amount of personal property, wholly insufficient to pay his debts; that a sale of the said land is necessary to pay said note. He demanded judgment that the land be sold by a commissioner, and the proceeds applied to the discharge of the note or judgment. The defendants, heirs at law of W. A. Jones, file answers admitting the contract, and denying that any judgment was rendered on the note. They allege that many payments have been made on the note, and that there is a very small sum, if any, now due thereon, and that the defendants are ready, willing, and able to pay the same. They further allege that, as they are informed, the plaintiff did bring suit against W. A. Jones upon the same obligation that he alleged W. A. Jones had executed to him, and did obtain Judgment thereon, but that said judgment in no way affects the rights of defendants; that a court of justice of the peace had no jurisdiction to enforce specific performance of a contract; that the items of payment made by W. A. Joneson the purchase money for said land are numerous, and so complicated that a reference is necessary to ascertain the exact amount due, etc. The administrator answers, admitting the several allegations of the complaint. The case on appeal states that "to establish his claim the plaintiff offered a judgment purporting to be signed by E. F. Wall, a justice of the peace"; that the defendant objected to the judgment upon the following grounds: (1) That the judgment was not properly proved; (2) that a justice of the peace had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action; (3) that the justice undertook to declare the judgment a lien upon land, and that the judgment was for...