Spade v. Bruner

• Decision Date: 27 May 1872
• Citation: 72 Pa. 57
• Parties: Spade <I>versus</I> Bruner and Carl.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

72 Pa. 57

Spade versus Bruner and Carl.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 20, 1872.

May 27, 1872.

May 20th 1872.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata county: No. 12, to May Term 1872.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

E. T. Doty & Son, for plaintiff in error, as to the question of Justice Reed's jurisdiction, cited Hazelett v. Ford, 10 Watts 101; Camp v. Wood, Id. 118; Hallowell v. Williams, 4 Barr 339; Vansyckel's Appeal, 1 Harris 128; Delaware v. Greenwood, 16 P. F. Smith 63. As to the exemption right he referred to Bonsall v. Comly, 8 Wright 442; O'Nail v. Craig, 6 P. F. Smith 161.

Parker & Sahm, for defendants in error, as to jurisdiction, cited Clark v. McComman, 7 W. & S. 469; Hazelett v. Ford, 10 Watts 101.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 27th 1872, by SHARSWOOD, J.

The learned judge below came, we think, to the right conclusion upon the question raised by the third assignment of error, as to the effect of the judgment before Justice Reed rendered on the transcript of Justice Light. Reed had no jurisdiction or power to proceed in that way, and if that judgment had come directly in question upon appeal or certiorari it must have been so held, as was decided in Koons v. Headley, 13 Wright 168. The authorities cited by the learned judge in his able opinion demonstrate that where a justice has general jurisdiction his judgment cannot be impeached collaterally by showing that he had no jurisdiction in the particular form adopted. The general jurisdiction was of debts under one hundred dollars. The special case of which he had no jurisdiction was of proceedings upon the transcript of a justice whose term of office had expired. Must the plaintiff, the justice and the constable, be involved in the consequence of a trespass by a mistake upon such a point as this? We think not. Although the justice had no jurisdiction to proceed upon the transcript, his judgment after hearing the parties, the defendant admitting the plaintiff's demand, was not absolutely void, and could not be impeached in a collateral proceeding by parol evidence.

But we think the first assignment of error must be sustained. The learned judge erred in affirming the defendant's third point, that if his separate property was seized and sold under a joint execution against him and another, he was not entitled to the benefit of the three hundred dollar exemption law, and therefore could not recover. He relied mainly on the opinion of the court delivered by...