People v. Hills

• Decision Date: 26 January 1888
• Citation: 16 P. 405,5 Utah 410
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH, EX RELATIONE, ANNA MARKS, PETITIONER, v. JOHN E. HILLS, COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENT. THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH, EX RELATIONE, WILLIAM HOLT, PETITIONER, v. JOHN E. HILLS, COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENT

16 P. 405

5 Utah 410

THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH, EX RELATIONE, ANNA MARKS, PETITIONER, v. JOHN E. HILLS, COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENT.

THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH, EX RELATIONE, WILLIAM HOLT, PETITIONER, v. JOHN E. HILLS, COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENT

Supreme Court of Utah

January 26, 1888

ORIGINAL petitions for writs of prohibition. The opinion states the facts.

Petitions denied.

Mr. S R. Thurman, Mr. George Sutherland and Mr. David Evans, for petitioners.

Mr. J G. Sutherland and Mr. A. G. Sutherland, for respondent.

HENDERSON J. ZANE, C. J., BOREMAN, J., concurring.

OPINION

HENDERSON, J.:

In both these causes a writ of prohibition is petitioned for, to prohibit the defendant from further proceeding in civil causes now pending before him. The defendant is a commissioner of this court, and is proceeding, against the objection of the relators, to exercise jurisdiction over them in civil causes now pending against them, respectively, before the said defendant at the city and precinct of Provo, in Utah county. The residence of the parties in both of said actions is such that a justice of the peace, acting as such in said Provo city and precinct, would have no jurisdiction over the relators under the statutes of this territory. These facts and conditions are conceded. On the presentation of the petitions, this court was inclined to leave the relators to their remedy in the cases by appeal or certiorari, but we are urged by counsel for all the parties to hear arguments, and determine the territorial limits of a commissioner's jurisdiction when acting as a justice of the peace.

The defendant claims jurisdiction over the relators, and the right to proceed in the cases, under section 7 of the act of Congress of March 4, 1887, known as the "Edmunds-Tucker Act," which is as follows: "That commissioners appointed by the supreme court and district courts in the Territory of Utah shall possess and may exercise all the powers and jurisdiction that are or may be possessed or exercised by justices of the peace in said territory, under the laws thereof, and the same powers conferred by law on commissioners appointed by circuit courts of the United States." It is argued by counsel for defendant that the limitation in the section quoted to "powers and jurisdiction" refers only to subject-matter, and only limits the jurisdiction of commissioners to the subjects or causes of action over which justices have jurisdiction, but that as the officers whom Congress has made justices are officers of territorial jurisdiction; therefore, they may exercise and perform the duties of justices of the peace in any part of the territory, and, acting as such in any part or precinct of the territory, they may issue their process, to, and it may be served anywhere in the territory; and that they thereby acquire jurisdiction over the parties, notwithstanding the statues of the territory providing territorial limits beyond which parties shall not be summoned before a justice of the peace. This argument, in one sense, and to a limited extent, is no doubt correct. The commissioners appointed by this court are not appointed to exercise their duties in, and their official character is not confined to, any particular part of the territory, but they are commissioners over the whole territory, and there is probably no limit as to the place where they may act as such; but, when a commissioner at any place or precinct in the territory assumes the duties of a justice of the peace, under the act in question, was it the intention of Congress to do more than to duplicate in him the office of justice of the peace at that place? We think not. If this defendant can issue his summons from and returnable at Provo precinct, directed to a resident of Juab county, and upon its service in that county take jurisdiction over him, then it is plain that he exercises a power and jurisdiction that no justice of the peace can exercise.

We are of opinion that when a commissioner proceeds to exercise the powers and jurisdiction of a justice of the peace under the statute in question, at any particular place or precinct, he has the same powers and jurisdiction over subjects and persons that he would have if he were a legally constituted justice of the peace, authorized and empowered by the laws of the territory to act and exercise the duties of...