Universal Motor Lines, Inc. v. Walker

• Decision Date: 16 March 1939
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 456.
• Citation: 187 So. 495,237 Ala. 413
• Parties: UNIVERSAL MOTOR LINES, INC., v. WALKER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

187 So. 495

237 Ala. 413

UNIVERSAL MOTOR LINES, INC., v. WALKER.

6 Div. 456.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 16, 1939

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Crampton Harris Special Judge.

Action for damages by E. A. Walker against Universal Motor Lines Inc. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326.

Affirmed.

J Wiley Logan, of Birmingham, for appellant.

L. E. Rogers, of Birmingham, for appellee.

FOSTER Justice.

This is a civil suit for $300 begun in the Intermediate Civil Court of Birmingham against appellant. Within thirty days of the service of the summons and complaint defendant demanded in writing a trial by jury, and contended that since there is no provision of law for a jury trial in that court, the cause therefore was not subject to trial in it. The court overruled the protest and proceeded to try the suit and rendered judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $150. Thereupon defendant appealed to the circuit court by making a supersedeas appeal bond in the sum of $315, conditioned to pay and satisfy such judgment as may be rendered by the circuit court.

Upon the hearing in the circuit court, defendant moved to dismiss the cause because he was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial in the said Intermediate Court, as secured by section 11 of the Constitution, and that on his demand for a jury trial in that court, it had no power to try the cause, since it had no power to provide a jury trial. This motion was made in writing, and the court overruled it as shown by the minute entry. Section 9459, Code. There is no bill of exceptions, and none is necessary to present this point.

The suit then proceeded to trial with a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $184.62. The appeal is from that judgment, and the only contention is that there was a denial of the constitutional right of a trial by jury.

The Act creating the court confers civil jurisdiction in cases in which justices of the peace have jurisdiction conferred by law, and in addition and concurrently with the circuit court in all civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds such jurisdiction of justices of the peace, but does not exceed the sum of $300, excepting certain forms of action, not here applicable.

The Act, section 18, provides that all trials in that court shall be by the judge without a jury, and that any party shall have the right to appeal to the circuit court within five days, and on appeal either party may demand a trial by jury, and the trial shall be de novo. Appellant must give bond to satisfy such judgment as may be rendered against him in the circuit court, if the judgment is for money or for personal property, and if the appellant wishes to have the judgment superseded. If he does not wish to supersede the execution of the judgment, he shall give bond to pay all costs that may be taxed against him in the circuit court. It does not seem to be necessary to refer to other features of the Act. Local Acts, September 7, 1935, page 219.

It is insisted that, since no jury trial is provided in the court where the suit is first to be tried, and not until an appeal is provided after executing supersedeas bond, if the collection of the judgment is to be deferred pending appeal, the Act does not secure a right to jury trial such as required by section 11, Constitution.

It is said that the question is different from that which pertains to justices of the peace, because that is a constitutional office, with provision for maximal jurisdiction, and therefore section 168, Constitution, so providing, is to be given effect in pari materia with section 11, Constitution.

We concede that such status may be an additional reason why section 11, Constitution, is not there violated, but it is not the sole reason. It was long held in many courts of this Country that this situation does not violate such a constitutional right, without considering the constitutional provision for the jurisdiction of a...