Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Ray

• Decision Date: 21 December 1906
• Citation: 52 Fla. 634,42 So. 714
• Parties: SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. v. RAY.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

42 So. 714

52 Fla. 634

SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. v. RAY.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

December 21, 1906

Certiorari to Circuit Court, Marion County; William S. Bullock, Judge.

Certiorari by the Seaboard Air Line Railway against G. W. Ray, to review a judgment of the circuit court on appeal from the county court. Judgment quashed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Certiorari is a common-law writ, which issues, in the sound judicial discretion of the court, to an inferior court, not to take the place of a writ of error or an appeal, but to cause the entire record of the inferior court to be brought up by certified copy for inspection, in order that the superior court may determine from the face of the record whether the inferior court has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has not proceeded according to the essential requirements of the law in cases where no direct appellate proceedings are provided by law.

Under the constitutional provision that 'the county judge shall have original jurisdiction in all cases at law in which the amount demanded or value of property involved shall not exceed one hundred dollars,' the jurisdiction of the county judge in an action against a common carrier for damages to property transported is to be determined by the sum in good faith demanded or actually put in controversy and not by the amount of the recovery.

If the face of the record in an action at law brought in the court of the county judge shows that the amount demanded or actually put in controversy exceeds $100, the county judge is without jurisdiction to entertain it, and any judgment entered by him in the cause, except to dismiss it, is coram non judice and utterly void.

Where a declaration alleges damages to be at least 25 cents per crate for 366 crates of cantaloupes, and that 'the plaintiff claims damages for $125,' and there is no relinquishment of any part of the damages claimed, damages to an amount not exceeding $125 may be proven in a proper forum, and a court which has jurisdiction in such causes only where the amount demanded shall not exceed $100 cannot entertain jurisdiction of the cause of action as stated.

Where an action at law is brought in the court of the county judge against a common carrier for its negligence and carelessness in not transporting with reasonable dispatch 366 crates of cantaloupes committed to it for shipment, so that the 366 crates deteriorated in value 'at least 25 cents per crate, and the plaintiff claims damages for $125 by reason of the said negligence,' and there is no relinquishment of any part of the damages, alleged to be at least 25 cents per crate for 366 crates, the accompanying claim for damages being $125, the record shows on its face that the sum demanded for the amount actually put in controversy exceeds $100, and therefore the county judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the cause, and any judgment entered therein by him except of dismissal, is void.

When a court of limited jurisdiction entertains a cause of action appearing on its face to be not within its jurisdiction, the entry of a judgment for an amount within the jurisdiction of the court does not give the court jurisdiction of the cause when there is no relinquishment of a part of the cause of action, so as to bring it bona fide within the jurisdiction of the court.

When the court has no jurisdiction to entertain a cause of action, because the amount claimed is too large, the appearance of the defendant cannot confer upon the court jurisdiction of the cause.

Where the county judge entertains jurisdiction of a cause not within his constitutional jurisdiction to try and determine, any judgment entered by him in such cause, except of dismissal, is void, and a judgment of the circuit court, affirming on writ of error such void judgment of the county judge, is not according to the essential requirements of the law, and should be quashed on certiorari.

COUNSEL

Geo. P. Raney and L. N. Green, for petitioner.

W. K. Zewadski (Laurie Y. Isler, on the brief), for respondent.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

Upon a petition filed in this court by the Seaboard Air Line Railway, a corporation, a writ of certiorari was issued herein, commanding the transmission to this court of a full, true, and complete transcript of the record in the case in the circuit court for Marion county, wherein the said Seaboard Air Line Railway was plaintiff in error and G. W. Ray was defendant in error, on writ of error to a judgment of the county judge's court in and for Marion county. The record brought here as the return to the writ shows that G. W. Ray brought an action for damages against the Seaboard Air Line Railway for carelessly and negligently allowing 366 crates of cantaloupes, perishable freight, belonging to Ray and delivered to the company for carriage, to deteriorate in value by being delayed in transporation, and as damages stated 'that such deterioration amounted in loss to at least 25 cents per crate, and the plaintiff claims damages for $125 by reason of said negligence of the defendant.' The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that (1) the same fails to set forth such matters as show the plaintiff to have a right of action against the defendant; (2) the same fails to show the alleged negligence of the defendant caused the injury complained of. This demurrer was overruled, and, the defendant failing to plead, judgment was rendered against the defendant for 'the sum of $91.50 damages' and costs. A writ of error was taken from the circuit court of Marion county to this judgment. In the circuit court it was contended that, 'the amount claimed by the plaintiff in damages being the sum of $125, as set forth in his declaration, the court did not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and therefore no jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff's alleged cause of action.' The circuit court affirmed the judgment rendered by the county judge, and it is to this record that the writ of certiorari is directed.

Under the Constitution of this state the circuit court...