Case ID: tenn_13/html/0297-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Catron, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dews vs. Eastham.
    
      A debtor and a creditor may lawfully change one large debt due by note, not within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peaee, to several smaller ones within that jurisdiction, in order that a justice may render judgments thereon.
    When several suits are brought up from before a justice of the peace, and depend upon the same question, upon motion they will be consolidated, and the party cast must pay all the costs, though the motion to amend be made by the adverse party.
    The defendant in error held a note on the plaintiff in error, for a sum not within the jurisdiction of a justice. They afterwards agreed, in order to give a justice of the peace jurisdiction, to make several small notes within his jurisdiction. This being done, the justice gave judgment against the plaintiff in error on each note separately, From these several judgments the plaintiff in error appealed to the circuit court of White county. The defendant in error obtained five judgments against the plaintiffin error, in the circuit court of White county. All the cases depending on the same question, the parties agreed that the defendant below should prosecute an appeal in the nature of a writ of error in one of the cases only, to this court, and that the other four cases should abide the determination of that. The case which was brought here at a former term of this court, was determined, and the judgment of the circuit court reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial. When the cause went back to the circuit court, the judgments in the other four cases were all setaside; and on application of Eastham, the plaintiff below, all five causes were consolidated and proceeded in as one cause. In that cause there was a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff below, and all the costs in the five cases up to the time of consolidation, (except the costs of the supreme court in the case which was brought here, and the costs of setting aside the other four judgments,) together with the costs which accrued ¡n the consolidated case, were taxed against the defend- , . 7 ° ant below.
   Catron, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment ordering the manner of taxing the costs, is the only subject of complaint now urged. It is urged, that as all five of these cases grew out of the division of a debt beyond the jurisdiction of a justice, into five notes within his jurisdiction, that this was a fraud on the jurisdiction, and disabled tj$3 plaintiff from proceeding in the several cases; that therefore the amendment consolidating the cases was necessary, in order to enable the plaintiff to proceed; and that the court, in allowing the amendment, in the exercise of a sound legal discretion, ought to have made the plaintiff pay all the cost which had previously accrued, and that not having done so, was error. We differ from this view of the case. However reprehensible it may he, for a creditor who has a debtor in his power, to induce the sub-division of a large debt into a number of small debts, and thereby create a large amount of costs, yet we know of no rule of law which disables parties from making such contracts, or which will prevent his obtaining judgment on notes so given. We therefore think that Eastham might have obtained judgment for the amount really due him in all the cases; and if so, the consolidation was for the benefit of the defendant below, as well as the plaintiff, in lessening the amount of trouble and costs; and therefore the terms upon which the amendment was allowed, were proper.

Judgment affirmed.