Case ID: shan-cas_3/html/0588-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nicholson, C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MEMPHIS & CHARLESTON RAILROAD CO. v. LEWIS BOND, ADM’R., ETC.
    Jackson,
    September Term, 1875.
    
      1. JURISDICTION OE JUSTICE OE THE PEACE. On indorsement on a note.
    Where, before the act of 1875, ch. 11, the plaintiff sued the defendant before a justice of the peace “to answer the plaintiff in a plea of debt due by note under five hundred dollars,” which was a suit on the indorsement on the note where demand and notice were not waived, the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction of the suit to render judgment for four hundred and eighty-five dollars. [See now Code, sec. 5935, and note 7 under sec. 5936, increasing the jurisdiction to five hundred dollars on indorsements where demand and notice are not waived.]
    
      2. SAME. Same. Where justice has none, circuit court has none, even by remittitur.
    Where a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction of the in-dorsement on a note, the circuit court acquires none by appeal, and none can be acquired by a remittitur by the plaintiff.
    Cited with approval: Dixon v. Caruthers, 9 Yer., 30; Crow v. Cunningham, 5 Cold., 255.
   Nicholson, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Memphis and Charleston Railroad Co. sued S. S. Woodward and N. J. .Brooks before a justice of the peace to “answer the company in a plea of debt due by note under five hundred dollars.”

Upon trial the justice gave judgment for the company for $485. The note sued on was made by S. Woodward for $480.00, payable to A. Woodward, and by him and N. J. Brooks indorsed, not waiving demand and notice.

.From the judgment so rendered N. J. Brooks alone appealed, giving bond with S. P. Woodward and J. IT. Ed-mondson as sureties.

The circuit judge dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction, holding that as the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction of the indorsement on the note, the circuit court acquired none by the appeal, and that none could be acquired by a remittitur by the plaintiff. This holding is sustained by the case of Dixon v. Caruthers, 9 Yer., 30; and Crow v. Cunningham, 5 Cold., 255. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.