State v. Chillingworth

• Decision Date: 01 August 1930
• Citation: 100 Fla. 489,129 So. 816
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH v. CHILLINGWORTH, Circuit Judge, et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

129 So. 816

100 Fla. 489

STATE ex rel. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH v. CHILLINGWORTH, Circuit Judge, et al.

Florida Supreme Court

August 1, 1930

En Banc.

Original proceedings by the State of Florida, on the relation of the City of West Palm Beach, in Palm Beach County, opposed by C E. Chillingworth, as Judge of the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, and others, for a writ of prohibition.

Demurrer to suggestion for writ of prohibition and rule nisi sustained, and rule discharged.

COUNSEL

J. Mark Wilcox, of West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

E. J L'Engle, F. P. Fleming, and J. W. Shands, all of Jacksonville, for respondents.

OPINION

TERRELL C.J.

Pursuant to chapter 9944, Sp. Acts of 1923, and chapter 11855, Acts of 1927, Laws of Fla., petitioner issued its refunding bonds numbered from 1 to 2,569 both inclusive, said bonds being in denominations of $1,000, each bearing interest at 6 per cent per annum, payable serially on November 1st each year from 1930 to 1952, both inclusive.

Respondents, except the judge, were the owners of bonds numbered 1 to 20 of said issue, and in July, 1930, brought an action at common law in the circuit court of Palm Beach county to recover the fifth installment of interest due thereon. A demurrer to the declaration raising the sole question of jurisdiction was overruled, and petitioner filed its suggestion for writ of prohibition in this court. A rule nisi was issued and directed to respondents commending them to show cause why the writ of prohibition should not issue. The cause now comes on to be heard by us on a demurrer to and motion to quash and discharge the suggestion and the rule nisi.

The twenty interest coupons which constitute the basis of the common-law action aggregate $600. As to the value of the amount involved, the minimum jurisdiction of circuit courts in this state is $500. The sole question presented here for us to answer is whether or not the twenty interest coupons on which the common-law action below was predicated can be aggregated so as to bring the amount involved within the jurisdiction of the circuit court.

There is a lack of harmony among the courts of this country on the question of whether or not several causes of action may be combined to bring a case within the jurisdiction of the court. Some courts hold that jurisdiction is fixed by the amount of each separate demand, while others hold that certain demands may be aggregated to determine jurisdiction. Winer v. Blytheville Bank, 89 Ark. 435, 117 S.W 232, 131 Am. St. Rep. 102, seems to be the leading case supporting the former view. This court is, however, committed to the rule that, if the demands from their nature or character are joint or composite, or are in some way related to each other or arise out of the same transaction, circumstances, or occurrence, they may be aggregated to confer jurisdiction. Burkhart v. Gowin, 86 Fla. 376, 98 So. 140; Henderson-Waits Lumber Co. v. Croft, 89 Fla. 119, 103 So. 414; Martin v. Goode, 111 N.C. 288, 16 S.E. 232, 32 Am. St. Rep. 799; Com. v. Scott, 112 Ky. 252, 65 S.W. 596, 55 L. R. A. 597; 7 R. C. L. 1055; 15 C.J. 771, and cases cited This seems to be the prevailing rule throughout the country, but, where the claims are substantive and are not in their nature joint or...