Woods v. Speer
| Decision Date | 16 January 1922 |
| Docket Number | 22260 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WOODS v. SPEER et al |
1. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE. Appeal must be to circuit court of district of defendant's residence, where justice's district partly in two districts.
Where the district of a justice of the peace of a county is partly in each of two circuit court districts, an appeal from a judgment of the justice of the peace court must be prosecuted to the circuit court of the district of defendant's residence; the circuit court of the other district being without jurisdiction of such an appeal.
2. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE. Justice may hold court anywhere in his supervisor's district.
A justice of the peace has jurisdiction of all residents of his supervisor's district, and his court may be held anywhere within his district.
3. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE. Appeal erroneously dismissed, where proper papers filed in wrong circuit court district.
Where the appeal bond correctly recites an appeal to the proper circuit court district, but the appeal papers are wrongly filed in the other court district, it is error for the circuit court to dismiss the cause.
4. APPEAL AND ERROR. Supreme court will reverse and remand where circuit court has erroneously dismissed appeal for want of jurisdiction.
On an appeal to this court a judgment of the circuit court erroneously dismissing the cause, will be reversed, and the cause remanded to the proper circuit court district, when the appeal bond from the judgment of the justice of the peace court correctly recites the proper circuit court.
HON JNO. W. KYLE, Judge.
APPEAL from circuit court of Panola county, HON JNO. W. KYLE, Judge.
Suit by W. W. Woods against Richard Speer and others before a justice of the peace. Judgment against defendants was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and from the judgment of dismissal plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Lomax B. Lamb, for appellant.
The justice of the peace, before whom this suit was tried, had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter. Under the Constitution of Mississippi each county is divided into five districts, and provisions, is made for the election of justices of the peace for each district. The jurisdiction of a justice of the peace extends over the entire supervisors district, section 170 and 171, Constitution of Mississippi.
The legislature did not undertake to deal with the jurisdiction and powers of the justices of the peace of Panola county when that county was divided into circuit court districts. The act dividing the county was for the purpose only of providing for two circuit courts and two chancery courts in said county the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace is unaffected by the division of the county into two circuit court districts. In fact the legislature would not have had the power, under the Constitution, to have interfered with the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. It cannot be denied that a justice of the peace in Mississippi has jurisdiction of a suit against a person living in the same supervisors district. That is Constitutional. No mere act of the legislature could interfere with that power. The division of a county into two circuit court districts could have no sort of effect on the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.
It is agreed that the defendants in the court below were householders and freeholders of supervisor's district No. 5 of Panola county; that the justice of the peace, in whose court they were sued, was a duly qualified and acting justice of the peace of said supervisor's district, and that, unless the division of the county into two circuit court districts, changes the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, the said A. E. Patton had jurisdiction of the parties. If he had jurisdiction of the parties, and of the subject-matter, the circuit court should not have dismissed the cause.
The only question presented to the circuit court by an appeal from the judgment of the justice of the peace, or whether it would take it to the first court district of said county in which circuit court district the defendants below resided. This question was considered by this court in the case of: Nations v. Lovejoy, 77 Miss. 36; Nations v. Lovejoy, 80 Miss. 401.
It is somewhat difficult to tell just what was decided by this court when the Nations case was first before it. The court seems to hold that as the case was tried before a justice of the peace, sitting in the second district of Yalobusha county, that the appeal must be taken to the second circuit court district of said county as the court says on page 39 that: "There is no provision authorizing the circuit court of the first judicial district of Yalobusha county to take jurisdiction of appeals on judgments of a justice of the peace outside the limits of the first district." But, the case seems to have been tried in the second circuit court district and an appeal taken to the second circuit court district of Yalobusha county. The appellant in the Nations case lived in the first circuit court district of Yalobusha county. This court reversed the judgment of the circuit court for failing to dismiss the appeal and the case was sent back to be further proceeded with. When the case got back to Yalobusha county the appeal bond was filed in the first circuit court district of said county, the case tried on its merits and judgment rendered, from which judgment an appeal was taken to this court, the action of the court below in entertaining an appeal was affirmed.
This court did state positively in the case reported in the 77 Mississippi reports, that appellant was properly sued before the justice of the peace in the second justice of the peace district, as he was a resident of said justice district. Now, in the case at bar, if the appeal was taken to the wrong court, the court below should have entered an order transferring it to the proper court. The case should not have been dismissed because the defendants were properly and lawfully sued before a justice of the peace having jurisdiction. The sole question on the motion to dismiss was whether to entertain the appeal in the second circuit court district of Panola county or whether to transfer it to the first circuit court district of Panola county.
I respectfully submit that there is no ground upon which the action of the court in dismissing the cause can be sustained, and ask that the case be reversed and remanded to be tried in the proper circuit court district of Panola county.
Fred H. Montgomery and James McClure, for appellees.
We desire to call the court's attention at the outset to errors of law and facts stated in the brief of counsel for appellant.
First: Counsel contends in his brief that territorial jurisdiction of a justice of the peace is guaranteed unto him by sections 170 and 171 of the Constitution of Mississippi. We fail to find any such provisions in these sections, but on the contrary find that the jurisdiction of territory, over which a justice of the peace has authority, is provided for by section 2724 of the Code of 1906.
Second: Counsel in stating the facts and law in the case of Nations v. Lovejoy reported in 77 Miss. 36, is in error when he says that: "The court seems to hold that as the case was tried before a justice of the peace, sitting in the second district of Yalobusha county," etc. The facts in this case are dealt with later on in this brief, but the error under review is corrected by saying: "That the case was tried before a justice of the peace sitting in the first court district of Yalobusha county," etc. This correction is inserted by appellees.
In face of the decisions of the supreme court of Mississippi rendered in the case of Nations v. Lovejoy, twice before this court, reported in 77 Miss. 36, in 80 Miss. 401, the learned trial judge could render but one decision on appellee's motion to dismiss and that was the order entered to dismiss.
If these two cases referred to above are carefully read, and we say this advisedly, for the syllabus written especially in the first case is somewhat misleading, the court will find as follows: First: Mrs. Lovejoy sued Nations in a justice of peace court in supervisor's beat number 2, which supervisor's beat lies partly in the first and partly in the second judicial district of Yalobusha county. Second: The defendant, Nations, lived in that part of beat two which lies in the first court district, and Third: The defendant was sued in the justice court held in beat two, which lies in the first judicial district, the supervisor's district and court district were the districts of the defendant's residence. Fourth: A judgment was entered against Nations and he appealed to the circuit court, not of the district where the justice court was held, but to the circuit court of the second judicial district of Yalobusha county. Fifth: Nations, after appealing his case from the first court district, as it were, across county lines, realized his plight and he made a motion in the circuit court of the second district of Yalobusha county to dismiss same, but this motion was denied him, and he prosecuted his appeal to the supreme court, 79 Miss. 36 and assigned as error the action of the lower court in failing to dismiss the case on his motion. Sixth: The supreme court held: "That it was not a case of venue but one of jurisdiction, and appellate jurisdiction; that the circuit and chancery courts of the first and second judicial district are as distinct from each other as the circuit and chancery courts of different counties; that there is no appellate jurisdiction in the circuit court of one county from judgments of justice of peace in another county; there is no such thing as...
To continue reading
Request your trial