Rose v. Christinett

• Decision Date: 10 February 1906
• Citation: 92 S.W. 866
• Parties: ROSE et al. v. CHRISTINETT.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

92 S.W. 866

ROSE et al. v. CHRISTINETT.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 10, 1906.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County; Edward W. Winfield, Judge.

Action by Lizette Christinett against Gaskill-Mundy Carnival Company and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff on appeal from a justice of the peace, defendant J. M. Rose and others appeal. Reversed.

Charles T. Coleman, for appellants. Maloney & Maloney, for appellee.

McCULLOCH, J.

The plaintiff, Lizette Christinett, brought an action of replevin before a justice of the peace of Pulaski county against the Gaskill-Mundy Carnival Company and Frank W. Gaskill to recover possession of a contrivance called "Cycle Dazzle Track" or its value alleged to be $100 and damages in the sum of $25 for detention of the same. An order of delivery was issued and served and the defendants gave bond to retain possession of the property. Judgment was rendered by the justice of the peace in favor of the plaintiff for recovery of said property or its value $100 and damages in the sum of $25, and the defendant appealed to the circuit court. In the circuit court the plaintiff, by leave of court and over the objection of the defendants, filed an amended complaint, in which she alleged the value of the article sued for to be $175, that it had been damaged by defendants in the sum of $113.46, and that plaintiff had sustained damages in the sum of $1,537.50 for the detention thereof. A trial was had upon the amended complaint, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the property or its value $61.54, damages to same in sum of $113.46, and damages for detention in the sum of $320, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The defendant filed a motion for new trial, and also a motion to dismiss the cause, on the alleged ground that the cause of action was not within the jurisdiction of the court. Thereupon the plaintiff was permitted to remit the judgment for damages to the property down to $100, and also the damages for detention down to $40, and both the motions of defendants were overruled and they appealed to this court.

Jurisdiction of courts is defined to be "the power to hear and determine a cause." 1 Freeman on Judgments, § 118. The jurisdiction of justices of the peace in actions for damages to personal property is limited to $100 in amount, and on appeal to the circuit court the jurisdiction of that court is limited to that amount, because the circuit court thereby acquires only such jurisdiction as the justice of the peace had. Railway Company v. Manees, 44 Ark. 100; Whitesides v. Kershaw, 44 Ark. 377; Bunch v. Potts, 57 Ark. 257, 21 S. W. 437. It is urged, however, that as the court had jurisdiction originally, the defect in jurisdiction by reason of the excessive amount claimed in the amended complaint, was cured by the remittitur entered after judgment. The cause of action set forth in the amended complaint was for an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of the...