Smith v. District Court of Second Judicial District

• Decision Date: 11 December 1901
• Docket Number: 1333
• Citation: 24 Utah 164,66 P. 1065
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: JESSE M. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT et al., Defendants

66 P. 1065

24 Utah 164

JESSE M. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT et al., Defendants

No. 1333

Supreme Court of Utah

December 11, 1901

The plaintiff brought an action against a railroad company wherein he recovered judgment. The company appealed to the district court and thereafter the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Upon the application of the plaintiff, a writ of certiorari was issued from this court. Demurrer to the petition and motion to quash the writ sustained.

WRIT DENIED.

Ray Van Cott, Esq., for plaintiff.

Messrs Bennett, Howat, Sutherland & Van Cott for defendants.

BASKIN J., dissenting.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.--

The plaintiff in this proceeding brought an action against the railroad company in the justice court of Davis county wherein judgment was rendered in his favor. The defendant then appealed to the district court, and thereafter, said plaintiff not being prepared to proceed with the trial, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereupon a writ of certiorari was issued from this court upon the application of said plaintiff, who claimed that said district court had exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing said case. To the petition the defendant filed its demurrer, and a motion to quash the writ on the grounds that upon the face of the petition the district court had regularly performed its authority, that this court had no jurisdiction in the matter, and that the petition does not state facts sufficient to justify the issuing of the writ. The defendants now claim that under section 9, article 8, of the Constitution of this State, the action of the district court was final, and not subject to review in any form whatever by the Supreme Court; that in cases commenced in a justice court the right of appeal exists to the district court, but that from the decision of that court no appeal lies to this court to review such determination. The article referred to reads as follows: "Appeals shall also lie from the final judgment of justices of the peace in civil and criminal cases to the district courts on both questions of law and fact, with such limitations and restrictions as shall be provided by law; and the decision of the district courts on such appeals shall be final, except in cases involving the validity or constitutionality of a statute."

The right of appeal exists only by virtue of the Constitution or statute allowing it, and, as there must be an end to litigation somewhere, it was doubtless the intention of the framers of the Constitution to limit the right, in cases originating in justices' courts, to the district court and thereby throw protection around that class of litigants, and save them from the vexation, delay, and expense usually attending appeals from judgments in trivial cases to the higher courts. Such restrictions, when thrown around appeals, apply equally to any other procedure instituted to review any decision or determination of a court in a case commenced in a justice court and which could be reconsidered by appeal if appeals were permissible. The decision and determination of the district court in a case appealed from a justice court is by the Constitution, therefore, made final, except in cases where the validity or constitutionality of a statute is in question. In Crooks v. District Court, 21 Utah 98, 59 P. 529, this...