Willoughby v. Summers

• Decision Date: 02 January 1917
• Docket Number: 7103.
• Parties: WILLOUGHBY v. SUMMERS.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

162 P. 206

62 Okla. 98, 1917 OK 26

WILLOUGHBY v. SUMMERS.

No. 7103.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

January 2, 1917

Syllabus by the Court.

The act of Legislature approved April 24, 1913 (chapter 135, p. 292) Session Laws of 1913, prohibiting appeals from justice court in causes of action involving less than $20, is a valid and subsisting statute, and not in violation of the Constitution.

A claim for attorney's fees not provided for in the contract sued upon and not recoverable under the statutes cannot be added to the amount in controversy so as to give the court jurisdiction on an appeal.

The right to recover depends, not upon the prayer, but upon the scope of the pleading and the issues made or which might have been made under it.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 6. Error from County Court, Pontotoc County; I. M. King, Judge.

Action by Alfred Summers against John D. Willoughby, begun in justice's court, and appealed by defendant to the county. The appeal was dismissed, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

C. O Barton, of Ada, for plaintiff in error.

Sanders & Winn, of Ada, for defendant in error.

FREEMAN C.

This case originated before a justice of the peace of Pontotoc county, wherein Alfred Summers was plaintiff and John D Willoughby was defendant. The parties will be referred to as first styled.

The judgment rendered in the justice court in favor of plaintiff was for $7.77; costs, $23.60--total $31.37. The justice of the peace certified that attorney's fees, $15, due Hewlett, included.

From this judgment the defendant appealed to the county court, where a trial was had and a verdict rendered for the defendant. Thereupon the court on motion of plaintiff vacated and set aside the judgment and dismissed the appeal and remanded the cause to the justice's court for further consideration and action required by law, assigning as a reason that the court had no jurisdiction in the trial of said cause, and that said judgment was therefore void.

The defendant assigns as error:

First. The court erred in dismissing plaintiff's appeal upon the ground that the judgment of the justice of the peace in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant did not exceed the sum of $20.

Second. The court erred in holding that the amount of the judgment of the justice of the peace did not exceed the sum of $20.

Third. The court erred in holding that the case was concerning a cause of action involving less than $20.

The Legislature by act approved April 24, 1913 (chapter 135, p. 292, Session Laws 1913), provided as follows:

"An appeal may be taken from the final judgment of a justice of the peace in any case, except in cases hereinafter stated in which no appeal shall be allowed: First. On judgment rendered on confession. Second. Concerning causes of action involving less than $20.00."

The court in case of St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Tolbert et al., 148 P. 128, holds that this act is a valid and subsisting statute, although not contained in Revised Laws of 1910, and that an appeal will not lie from a justice of the peace court involving less than $20.

The only remaining question is: Was this a cause of action involving less than $20? This action was based upon an open account set out in the bill of particulars, wherein the plaintiff sought to recover $7.12, but in his prayer asks for a further sum of $15 attorney's fees. A claim for attorney's fees not provided for in the...