Spencer v. Vance

• Decision Date: 31 August 1874
• Citation: 57 Mo. 427
• Parties: LAURA E. SPENCER and HUSBAND, Respondents, v. JOHN R. VANCE, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

57 Mo. 427

LAURA E. SPENCER and HUSBAND, Respondents,

v.JOHN R. VANCE, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

August Term, 1874.

Appeal from Worth Circuit Court.

Bennett Pike, for Appellant.

Dawson & Edwards, for Respondents.WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding originally instituted before a justice of the peace. The complaint there filed, in substance, stated that plaintiff was the legal owner of a certain young mare, two years old, of the value of eighty dollars; that defendant took said young mare without consent of the plaintiff, and converted her to his own use; that defendant afterwards, without the consent of plaintiff, sold said young mare for the sum of eighty dollars, and converted the same to his own use, and that he never paid any part of the same to plaintiff, though often requested so to do. The prayer was for the sum of eighty dollars and six per cent. interest thereon.

On the trial in the justice's court, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for one hundred and eleven dollars and forty cents.

The defendant appealed; and in the Circuit Court he made a motion to dismiss the case, because the justice had no jurisdiction. This motion was overruled; and on a trial anew, there was again a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for eighty-three dollars and thirty-one cents. To reverse this judgment the defendant has prosecuted his appeal.

We think it is very evident that the court erred in not sustaining the defendant's motion to dismiss. Clearly the justice's court had no jurisdiction of the cause.

The statute, (Wagn. Stat., 808, § 3) gives justices of the peace jurisdiction “in all actions for injuries to persons, or to personal or real property, wherein the damages claimed shall * * * not exceed fifty dollars.” Justices have only such jurisdiction as is conferred upon them by statute, and in all cases of wrongful acts or injuries to personal property, it can only extend to the sum of fifty dollars.

The complaint or statement alleged an unlawful taking of the property by the defendant, and a conversion of the same to his own use. This, under the old system, would have been technically an action of trover, and in such cases it has been expressly adjudged by this court, that the justice can have jurisdiction only where the damages claimed do not exceed fifty dollars. (Smith vs. Grove, 12 Mo., 51; Glassby vs. Prewitt, 26 Mo., 121; Aherne vs. Collins, 30 Mo., 200.)

The same doctrine was re-iterated in Webb vs. Tweedie, (30 Mo., 488) and it was held, that in cases of this description the plaintiff could not give jurisdiction by waiving the tort in his statement, and setting forth that he sued in assumpsit.

The court in the opinion said: “Mere nominal distinctions between actions no longer exist, such as trespass, assumpsit, etc.; and the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace is not defined by employing any such terms or distinctions; hence, what is said about waiving the trespass, and suing in assumpsit is without force.”

As this case must be reversed, and as the plaintiff may again bring her...