Sweet v. Chattanooga Elec. Light Co.

• Decision Date: 19 September 1896
• Citation: 36 S.W. 1090,97 Tenn. 252
• Parties: SWEET v. CHATTANOOGA ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

36 S.W. 1090

97 Tenn. 252

SWEET v. CHATTANOOGA ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September 19, 1896

Error to circuit court, Hamilton county; John A. Moon, Judge.

Action by Hiram B. Sweet against the Chattanooga Electric Light Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Case & Case, for plaintiff in error.

Shepherd & Frierson, for defendant in error.

WILKES J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries caused by the bursting of the fly wheel of defendant's engine on June 23, 1893. On June 22, 1894, plaintiff began suit against defendant and its receiver for such damages in the United States district court at Chattanooga. The declaration in this case alleges that the suit was dismissed by the Chattanooga court for want of jurisdiction. This suit was then brought on the 15th day of May, 1895. Demurrer was interposed setting up the statute of limitation of one year (Mill. & V. Code, § 3469) and alleging that the action in the federal court was really no action in the sense of the statute, inasmuch as the court in which it was brought had no jurisdiction, and the action was not therefore saved by the provision of section 3449, Mill. & V. Code, which provides that if the action is commenced within the term limited by the statute, but judgment is rendered against the plaintiff upon any grounds not concluding his right of action, etc., a new action may be brought within one year after the reversal or dismissal. The demurrer was sustained, and suit dismissed, and plaintiff has appealed and assigned errors. We think the demurrer was properly sustained, and the suit properly dismissed. An action commenced in a court having no jurisdiction to entertain it is no action, in the sense of the statute. The matter stands the same as if no suit had been brought or attempted to be brought, and the limitation runs from the date of the injury. If the action is brought in a court without jurisdiction, the whole proceeding is void and of no effect; and if it should proceed to judgment, the judgment likewise is void and without validity. In Anderson v Bedford, 4 Cold. 464, it is said: "In no case of which we are advised, when the failure of the action is due to the default, wrong, or laches of the plaintiff, has it been held sufficient to authorize the bringing of another suit, under the exception of the statute, within one year after the termination of the first." In that...