Willey v. Strickland
| Decision Date | 13 January 1857 |
| Citation | 8 Ind. 411 |
| Parties | Willey v. Strickland |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Lake Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded with instructions to permit the parties to amend their pleadings.
A. L Osborn, for appellant [1].
Strickland declared against Willey in debt, on a judgment of the County Court of Cattaraugus county, in the State of New York, and also on a judgment of a justice of the peace of said county. The declaration was filed before the present code of practice was in force. An answer was filed under the code, in which the defendant averred that he had no notice of the suits in the complaint mentioned; that he did not appear thereto; that no process was served upon him; and that neither the said court or justice had jurisdiction of either of said causes. The plaintiff replied that the defendant did appear. The Court tried the cause, found for the plaintiff, refused a new trial, and gave judgment accordingly. The record contains the evidence.
Evidence was given of only one judgment, which appeared to have been rendered by a justice of the peace, and a transcript of it filed in the County Court. The plaintiff's evidence consisted of a duly certified transcript from the County Court of the judgment, as it appeared of record there, as follows:
The defendant gave in evidence a deposition, for the purpose of proving that he did not appear to the action.
This was all the proof offered by either party.
The first question is, what is the effect of these pleadings? The count in the declaration which set forth a judgment before a justice of the peace, which was the one to which the proof applied, would have been bad on general demurrer, because it did not show that the justice had any jurisdiction of the cause. It does not even aver that he had; but more than that was necessary. There is no presumption in law that a justice of the peace of a foreign state has jurisdiction to render judgment in a civil action. Cone v. Cotton, 2 Blackf. 82. At common law, a justice was only a conservator of the peace. All civil jurisdiction is conferred upon justices by statute, and the justice's court is a court of special and limited jurisdiction. Thomas v. Winters, 4 Blackf. 161; Cleveland v. Rogers, 6 Wend. 438; Brickley v. Heilbruner, 7 Ind. 488; Gregg v. Wooden, 7 Ind. 499.
But it is provided that in actions already commenced, the pleadings and other proceedings shall, as far as practicable, conform to the provisions of the code. 2 R. S. p. 223, s. 799. And a further statute enacts that in pleading a judgment or decision of a court or officer of special jurisdiction, it shall be sufficient to allege generally that the judgment or decision was duly given or made. If the allegation be denied, the facts conferring jurisdiction must be proved on the trial. 2 R. S. p. 45, s. 83.
This statute cured the defect in the declaration, which when answered to, was sufficient; but still it was competent for the defendant to deny the jurisdiction; which he did in his answer. Under this section, inasmuch as the plaintiff avers nothing on the subject of jurisdiction, it is proper, perhaps, for the defendant to allege affirmatively the want of it; and if the allegation in the answer that the court which rendered the judgment had no jurisdiction of the cause, is to be so viewed, the defendant should have had judgment on the pleadings (2 R. S. p. 121, s. 372); for the reply did not traverse that averment, but simply alleged jurisdiction of the person, to-wit, that the defendant had appeared, and the want of jurisdiction of the cause stood admitted for the purposes of the action. 2 R. S. p. 44, s. 74.
Section 372 above referred to, is as follows: "Where upon the statements in the pleadings, one party is entitled by law to judgment in his favor, judgment shall be so rendered by the court, though a verdict has been found against such party." The object of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial