Town of Woodville v. Jenks
| Decision Date | 22 February 1909 |
| Citation | 94 Miss. 210,48 So. 620 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | TOWN OF WOODVILLE v. CHESTER H. JENKS |
October 1908
FROM the chancery court of Wilkinson county, HON. J. S. HICKS Chancellor.
Jenks appellee, was complainant in the court below, and the town of Woodville, appellant, was defendant there. From a decree overruling its demurrer to complainant's bill the defendand appealed to the supreme court.
The appellee's bill alleged that the town of Woodville because of services performed by him as an engineer superintending the construction of a water works and electric light plant, was indebted to him in the sum of $ 2,025 compensation claimed by him at five per centum on the contract price of the plant; less the credits mentioned in the bill. The bill alleged that "inasmuch as the dealings between complainant and defendant are voluminous, and extend over a period of several years, the court should state an account and fix the liability of the defendant to the complainant." The prayer of the bill was that an account should be stated and that the town be required to pay over to complainant whatever sum of money might be found to be due complainant by defendant. The defendant demurred to the bill assigning as a ground that a court of equity was without jurisdiction, since the suit was in assumpsit. In the supreme court the appellant contended that the chancery court erred in overruling appellant's demurrer, and in failing to transfer the case to the circuit court.
Affirmed.
Bramlette & Tucker, for appellant.
The account sued on was not a mutual account. The appellee's claim is one in assumpsit. Hence the chancery court is without jurisdiction. Abbey v. Owens, 57 Miss. 297; Barnard v. Sykes, 72 Miss. 297, 18 So. 450; Adams v. Cotton Mills, 89 Miss. 865, 43 So. 65.
It may be contended that inasmuch as the chancery court has assumed jurisdiction, the supreme court, under the state constitution, section 147, will not reverse the decree, under the ruling of Cazeneuve v. Curell, 70 Miss. 521, 12 So. 32. But if this be true, the chancery court should, sua sponte, have transferred the case to the circuit court, for our constitution, section 162, provides that this shall be done in cases where the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction. Hence, if the supreme court does not dismiss the bill, the case should be, under appropriate order of this court, remanded to be transferred to the circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tillotson v. Anders
...in that perfected product, must be held irreversible also. [Emphasis original] 70 Miss. at 525, 13 So. at 33. Woodville v. Jenks, 94 Miss. 210, 48 So. 620 (1908), was another attempt to have us hear an interlocutory appeal from an order overruling a non-jurisdiction demurrer. We The demurre......
-
Talbot & Higgins Lumber Co. v. Mcleod Lumber Co.
...but applied also to appeals from interlocutory decrees involving the question whether the cause was one of equity or law jurisdiction. In the Jenks case, it was held that, an action was brought in the chancery court to recover on a purely legal demand a balance due under an alleged contract......
-
Ross v. Taylor
...v. Tatum, 74 So. 286; Dinsmore v. Hardison, 111 Miss. 333, 71 So. 567; White et al. v. Willis, 111 Miss. 417, 71 So. 737; Woodville v. Jenks, 94 Miss. 210, 48 So. 620; Grenada Grocery Co. v. Tatul, 74 So. The constitution is too plain for misunderstanding or argument and we submit that ther......
-
Engleburg v. Tonkel
...v. Hartman, 74 Miss. 489, 21 So. 302; Iron v. Cole, 78 Miss. 132, 28 So. 803; Hancock v. Dodge, 85 Miss. 228, 37 So. 711; Woodville v. Jenks, 94 Miss. 210, 48 So. 620; Grenada Lumber Co. v. State, 54 So. 8; Miller State, 114 Miss. 713, 75 So. 549. Wherefore, in view of the fact that the bil......