Case ID: ohio-st_8/html/0199-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bartley, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

S. & S. S. Clark v. Hanna & Hall.
    The right of appeal to the district court from final judgments of the common pleas, in civil cases, in which the common pleas has original jurisdiction, extends only to cases in which that court had actual original jurisdiction ; and not to suits brought originally before a justice of the peace, and appealed to the common pleas, although falling within the class of cases in which concurrent original jurisdiction, with justices of the peace, is given to the common pleas.
    Motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the judgment of the District Court of Hamilton county.
    Plaintiffs commenced a civil action before a justice of the peace, in Hamilton county, to recover of defendants two hundred and twenty-eight dollars in money, for the alleged conversion of personal property belonging to plaintiffs. A trial was had before the justice, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiffs for eighty-eight dollars and costs. Defendants appealed to the court of common pleas, where a judgment was obtained in their favor. Whereupon, plaintiffs caused notice of appeal to the district court to be entered upon the journal of the common pleas, and asked the judge who tried the case, to fix the amount of the appeal bond, as prescribed by the statute regulating appeals to the district court, but he declined so to do. A sufficient appeal bond was, within the proper time, executed and delivered by plaintiffs to the clerk of the proper court, who accepted the same, and the cause was in due time docketed in the district court. At the April term, 1857, of the district court, on motion of defendants, the court dismissed the appeal, for want of jurisdiction.
    
      J. B. Baton, for plaintiffs.
    
      Jas. Peat, for defendants.
   Bartley, C. J.

It is assigned for error that the district court erred in dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

By the second section of an act to amend “ an act relating to the organization of courts of justice, and their powers aud duties,” passed February 19, 1852, it is provided, among other things, “ that the district court shall have appellate jurisdiction under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, from the court of common pleas, in all civil cases in which the court of common pleas has original jurisdiction.”

And by the first section of the act regulating appeals to the district court, passed March 23, 1852, it is provided, “ that appeals may be taken from all final judgments in civil cases at law, decrees in chancery,” etc., “ rendered by the court of common pleas, in which said court has original jurisdiction,” etc., “ to the district court.”

By the statute of May 1, 1854, extending the jurisdio tion of justices of the peace, their jurisdiction is made exclusive in any sum not exceeding one hundred dollars, and concurrent with the common pleas in any sum over one hundred dollars, and not exceeding three hundred dollars.

It is claimed by the plaintiff in error, that the appeal to the district court is given, in the class of cases in which the court of common pleas is capable of taking original jurisdiction. This, in our judgment, is not a correct interpretation of the statute. The cases in which the appeal is given from the judgment of the common pleas, are cases in which that court had actual original jurisdiction.

"Where a case, which falls within the class of cases in which the common pleas has concurrent original jurisdiction with the justice’s court, originates before a justice of the peace, it can only reach the common pleas by virtue of its appellate jurisdiction. Motion overruled.

Swan, Brinkerhoee, Scott and Sutlief, JJ., concurred.