State ex rel. Shrewsbury v. Poteet
| Decision Date | 19 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 13376,13376 |
| Citation | 157 W.Va. 540,202 S.E.2d 628,72 A.L.R.3d 368 |
| Parties | , 72 A.L.R.3d 368 STATE ex rel. Everette SHREWSBURY et al. v. John O. POTEET, Justice of the Peace, etc. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
1. 'It is a fundamental rule in the administration of justice that a person can not be a judge in a cause wherein he is interested, whether he be a party to the suit or not.' Point 1, Syllabus, Findley v. Smith, 42 W.Va. 299, 26 S.E. 370.
2. 'Where a justice of the peace has any pecuniary interest in any case to be tried by him, however remote, he is disqualified from trying such case.' Point 1, Syllabus, State ex. rel. Osborne v. Chinn, 146 W.Va. 610, 121 S.E.2d 610.
3. Chapter 50, Article 17, Section 1 of the West Virginia Code, 1931, as amended, wherein it provides for a Justice of the Peace to charge and collect a five dollar ($5.00) fee for entering and trying any civil suit, whether or not the suit is completed or discontinued, creates a pecuniary interest in the Justice of the Peace and is therefore violative of Article III, Section 10 of the Constitution of West Virginia and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
4. Chapter 50, Article 17, Section 1 of the West Virginia Code, 1931, as amended, wherein it provides that a Justice of the Peace shall charge a five dollar ($5.00) fee for each civil suit entered and tried in his court, encourages justice for sale and is violative of Article III, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia.
Daniel F. Hedges, Charleston, for relators.
John L. Detch, Lewisburg, for respondent.
In this original proceeding in prohibition the petitioners, Everette Shrewsbury and Mary E. Shrewsbury, residents and taxpayers of Rupert, Greenbrier County, West Virginia, seek a writ to restrain and prohibit John O. Poteet, Justice of the Peace of Fort Spring District, Greenbrier County, from further proceeding to collect an amount contained in a judgment rendered by him against said petitioners.
The main thrust of the petitioners' allegations is set out in their petition as follows:
* * * proceedings before respondent, Justice of the Peace John O. Poteet, who is compensated pursuant to the West Virginia fee system, deprived the petitioners herein of the due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution, in that, the statutory scheme, permitting creditor-plaintiffs a county-wide choice as to their judge (pursuant to Chapter 50, Article 2, Section 4 of the West Virginia Code), together with the case-volume payment scheme (pursuant to Chapter 50, Article 17, Section 2(1) of the West Virginia Code), creates competition between justices to get creditor-plaintiffs which destroys the judicial impartiality implicit in constitutionally guaranteed due process, creating a pecuniary interest in the justice, and which results in the consistent awarding of judgments for creditor-plaintiffs regardless of the law and a fairness to debtor-defendants. The petitioners further allege that such system subjects the petitioners to justice for sale and a denial of justice in violation of Article III, Section 17 of the West Virginia Constitution.
Plainly stated, the petitioners assert that the respondent Justice of the Peace who entered a judgment against them practiced 'justice for sale' in violation of Article III, Section 17 of the West Virginia Constitution by inducing the public to use his services and that by reason thereof had a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the cases before him by reason of all of which they did not receive a fair and impartial trial.
The respondent filed an Answer and Return to the rule issued against him. Therein he denied any improper actions and contended that he was operating under state statutes relative to his office of Justice of the Peace. He asserted that he charged only such fees and costs as were authorized by such statutes and that he acted in his judicial capacity to the best of his ability. He filed no brief in this Court, relating in his Answer that he was 'not of the disposition to defend at his cost the minor judiciary known as the Justice of the Peace system in West Virginia and leaves this matter to the judgment of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.'
The record reveals that the Shrewsburys, petitioners herein, as a result of dental services having been rendered on March 17, 1971 by Dr. John Echols received a bill for such services. This bill remained unpaid and in March, 1973 suit for the recovery thereof was instituted in the court of the respondent. The summons served upon the petitioners reflected a debt in the sum of $141.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and called for an appearance of the petitioners before the respondent on April 3, 1973 at 11 P.M. No appearance was made by the petitioners due to the alleged 'impossibility at such an unreasonable hour.' Subsequently, judgment was entered against the Shrewsburys in the amount of $169.51, which was itemized as follows:
Judgment $141.00
Interest 8.46
Justice 5.00
Constable 3.50
Commissions 7.05
Execution 4.50
-------
$169.51
After it was indicated on the return of the execution on the judgment that no property was found, a suggestee execution was issued by the respondent and forwarded to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County for service upon Sewell Coal Company the then employer of Mr. Shrewsbury.
On or about February 18, 1972, The Reliable Collection Agency, Inc. instituted a separate action against the Shrewsburys in the court of respondent Poteet. Judgment was entered against the petitioners on April 4, 1972 in the amount of $399.48, $99.48 thereof alleged to be interest. Pursuant to the aforesaid contentions, the Shrewsburys here seek to prohibit the enforcement of these judgments.
In support of their petition for prohibition the petitioners filed many depositions including that of John O. Poteet, the respondent. They also filed a host of exhibits that were presented and filed at the taking of the depositions. These depositions and exhibits show conclusively that the respondent, Justice of the Peace John O. Poteet, consistently has displayed favor to creditors in Greenbrier County. They show that many creditors in that county seek and use the services of Mr. Poteet for the reason that he does consistently render favorable judgments. Petitioners' exhibits Nos. 32 and 33 reveal that of thirty-eight major creditors in the Greenbrier County area, most exclusively sought redress in the respondent's court to the near exclusion of other Justices of the Peace in that area. It is revealed that The Reliable Collection Agency and other major creditors used the respondent's court to the complete exclusion of other justices. These allegations are not refuted or in any manner denied.
The deposition of Dr. Echols showed that he used the respondent's court because he could 'get the money collected'. It was asserted in a deposition of an employee of the Bank of Ronceverte that it had an arrangement with the respondent whereby he would receive a monetary stipend on an annual basis for collection work; that suit for the collection of money was instituted on its behalf by the respondent; and that there was no necessity for anyone to appear on behalf of the bank at any hearing held by the respondent. Other creditors also testified that they were not required to appear at hearings held for the collection of delinquent accounts. Others deposed that they used respondent Poteet because he did a 'good job' of collecting accounts; that if the respondent began rendering judgments for the defendant-debtors rather than for creditor-plaintiffs they would seek another Justice of the Peace for the fulfillment of their needs; that Mr. Poteet, as a practice, notified debtors on behalf of various creditors that suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc.
...apply the law and decide the case unfettered by any influences alien to the case or the process"). See also State ex rel. Shrewsbury v. Poteet, 157 W.Va. 540, 202 S.E.2d 628 (1974); State ex rel. Moats v. Janco, 154 W.Va. 887, 180 S.E.2d 74 (1971). Similarly, judicial judgment must be made ......
-
Linney v. Turpen
...judicial business creates a pecuniary conflict, is the decision of the highest court of West Virginia in State ex rel. Shrewsbury v. Poteet (1974) 202 S.E.2d 628, 157 W.Va. 540. There a statutory scheme permitted creditor-plaintiffs a county-wide choice as to judge and provided that the jud......
-
Haas v. County of San Bernardino
...The highest courts of West Virginia and South Carolina had already reached the same conclusion (see State ex rel. Shrewsbury v. Poteet, supra, 157 W.Va. 540, 202 S.E.2d 628, 631-632; State ex rel. McLeod v. Crowe, supra, 272 S.C. 41, 249 S.E.2d 772, 776-777, 778), and the federal district c......
-
State ex rel. Dunlap v. Berger
...parties to a dispute and where the person making the decisions is compensated on a fee-per-case basis. See State ex rel Shrewsbury v. Poteet, 157 W.Va. 540, 202 S.E.2d 628 (1974) (justice of the peace system, criminal cases); State ex rel. Reece v. Gies, 156 W.Va. 729, 198 S.E.2d 211 (1973)......