Roehme v. Roth
| Citation | 280 S.W. 730 |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 15530.,15530. |
| Parties | ROEHME v. ROTH. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pettis County; Dimmitt Hoffman, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by R. F. Boehme against Minnie Roth, guardian of Fred Henley. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
W. D. Steele, of Sedalia, for appellant.
W. W. Blain, of Sedalia, for respondent.
This is a suit in replevin originating in the court Of a justice of the peace in Pettis county, Mo., and from the judgment there rendered an appeal was taken to the circuit court of that county, where the cause was tried to the court without the aid of a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts.
The agreed statement of facts shows that defendant, Fred Henley, was (and still is) a minor; that plaintiff sold to defendant a Chandler automobile and took in part payment therefor a Ford touring car, at an agreed valuation of $75, and notes signed by the minor for the remainder. Some of the notes became due and were not paid, and plaintiff replevined the car he had sold to defendant.
Defendant filed answer and counterclaim in the justice court, alleging that he is a minor under the age of 21 years, and that he files his answer through his guardian, Minnie Roth, disaffirming the trade with plaintiff and tendering back to plaintiff the Chandler car in question. For further answer defendant states he traded to plaintiff a Ford car at an agreed valuation of $75, that said Ford car was reasonably worth $75, and that the written contract between plaintiff and defendant shows on its face that it was valued at $75. Further the answer states:
"Wherefore defendant, through his next friend, prays the court to protect the interest of the defendant and to adjudge a disaffirmance of the contract herein; that plaintiff be adjudged to return to defendant the Ford touring car, or if plaintiff be unable to return said Ford car to defendant, then that judgment rendered be against plaintiff and in favor of defendant for the- value of said car or in the sum of $75."
It was admitted that at the time of the trial plaintiff did not have the Ford car in shape to return it. It was also admitted that the suit was instituted in the justice court and appealed to the circuit court, and that the price of the Ford car was agreed upon at $75. The judgment of the court, sitting as a jury, is as follows:
"Judgment will be for plaintiff for possession of the Chandler car replevined by him and for defendant on his counterclaim in the sum of $75 and costs."
A motion for a new trial was unavailing, and plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the court on defendant's counterclaim.
On this appeal there is but one point presented for our consideration. Plaintiff insists the court erred in finding for defendant on his counterclaim. It is insisted that a counterclaim could not be pleaded in a justice court in this case because said counterclaim is a prayer for equitable relief; that a justice of the peace has no equitable jurisdiction, and on appeal from a justice court the circuit court acquires only such jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit as the law confers upon the justice court. It is urged that the last paragraph in defendant's answer is a prayer for equitable relief. It is true that a justice of the peace has no equitable jurisdiction (Small v. Speece, 110 S. W. 7, 131 Mo. App. 513), and it remains for us, therefore, to determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial