State Ex Rel. Honaker v. Black

• Citation: 112 S.E. 497
• Decision Date: 23 May 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 4626.)
• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HONAKER . v. BLACK, Judge, et al.

112 S.E. 497

STATE ex rel. HONAKER .

v.BLACK, Judge, et al.

(No. 4626.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

May 23, 1922.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Original proceedings in prohibition by the State, on the relation of H. W. Honaker, against H. K. Black, Judge of the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County, and others, to prohibit the execution of a judgment against relator. Writ refused.

Charles J. Hogg, of Charleston, for relator.

E. S. Bock, of Charleston, for respondents.

RITZ, J. The relator seeks by this proceeding to prohibit the execution of a judg ment rendered against him by the intermediate court of Kanawha county in an action of unlawful entry and detainer, upon the ground that said intermediate court was without jurisdiction to render judgment for the amount of damages found by the jury upon the trial of the case, and for which the judgment was rendered, to wit, the sum of $660.

The action of unlawful entry and detainer was originally instituted before a justice of the peace by the Crowley-Prairie Realty Company, a corporation, against the relator to recover the possession of certain premises therein described, and $100 damages for their unlawful detainer. Upon the trial of the action before the justice of the peace plaintiff had judgment for the recovery of the possession of the premises and $86.67 damages for the detention thereof. From this judgment the defendant prosecuted on appeal to the intermediate court of Kanawha county, and gave an appeal bond in the penalty of $1,400 to cover the judgment rendered by the justice and one year's rent of the premises in controversy, as provided by section 164 of chapter 50 of the Code (sec. 2718). The case was not tried in the intermediate court for a considerable time after the appeal was taken, and upon the trial in that court the jury found that the defendant unlawfully withheld the possession of the premises sued for and in addition, as required by the provision of section 218 of chapter 50 of the Code (sec. 2772), found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of $660 damages for the detention of the premises up to that time, and upon this verdict the court rendered the judgment sought to be prohibited.

The contention of the relator is that the jurisdiction of the intermediate court of Kanawha county in this case cannot extend any further or include any more than could be included within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, and that, inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace is limited in suits to recover damages to the sum of $300, the intermediate court of Kanawha county could not render a judgment for more than $300.

It is quite well settled that the circuit court upon an appeal from a justice can exercise in regard to the controversy pending before the justice only such jurisdiction as the justice might have exercised. In other words, if the cause of action upon which the suit is based before the justice is beyond his jurisdiction the circuit court upon appeal does not acquire any jurisdiction of it simply because it would have had jurisdiction of such a cause of action if it had been brought in that court in the first instance. It is this principle of law upon which the relator relies to defeat the jurisdiction of the interme-diate court to render this judgment The principle is, however, not applicable in this case. The jurisdiction of the justice is to be tested by the amount in controversy at the time of the institution of the suit. If at the time the plaintiff institutes his suit he has a cause of action cognizable by a justice, the fact that by delay in prosecuting the suit his claim for damages has been increased to such an extent as to exceed the justice's jurisdiction in the aggregate will not defeat the jurisdiction properly attaching at the time the suit was...