Case ID: ala_37/html/0585-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "A. J. WALKER, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HERRIN vs. BUCKELEW.
    [CERTIORARI CASE FROM JUSTICE’S COURT.]
    
      Civil jurisdiction of''justice of the peace. — "Where several promissory-notes, each for a less: sum than fifty dollars,.are executed at one and; the same time, for a .single debt amounting- -to the aggregate of their several sums, and are made payable' on_thé same. day, such notes are • within the civil jurisdiction of a justice of-, the x>eace.,
    'Appeal from the Circuit Court of Randolph..
    Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty. .
    The agreed facts of this ease are these: On the 26th January, 1858, Stephen NIC,Herrin -borrowed $1260 from-F. W. Buekelew, and, to secure the repayment thereof,, executed to said Buekelew twenty-eight promissory notes, for $45 each, all dated on said 26th,'. January, 1858, and payable on the 25th December next after date; which notes were also signed by J. M. Baker and James Saxon, as sureties for said Herrin, and co-makers with him. These notes being unpaid at maturity, Buekelew instituted separate suits on them against the makers, before a justice of the peace; all the-suits being commenced- on the same day-The defendants -pleaded in, abatement to the jurisdiction of the justice; but-a demurrer was sustained to their plea,, and judgment rendered against them-in. each of. the cases., T,he cases .were.removed by certiorari into the circuit court, and’,were there consolidated. The defendants again pleaded' in abatement, and a demurrer was again sustained to theirr plea; and this ruling of the court, to-which they reserved, an exception, is the only matter assigned as error.
    HeeliN & ForNey, for appellants.
    1., The several-notes were executed at one and the same time, for the ■ same debt, and as parts of one and the same contract; an# they are therefore to be construed as one instrument. — » 
      Glassell v. Chapman, J3 Ala. 50; Strong's Executors v. Brewer, 17 Ala. 706; 'Elliott v. McClelland, 17 Alá. 206 ; Dumas v. Hunter, 17 Ala»-305: Drater v. Darby, 24 Ala. 496,; Doe d. Holmanv. Crane, 16 Ala.'570 ; Trippe v. Trippe, 29 Ala." 637. -The notes-axe notithe debt, but only the evidence oí the debt.
    2. A single and entire cause of action cannot be split up into several suits.— Oliver v. Ilolt, 11 Ala. 574; De Sylva v. Henry, 3 Porter, 321 ; O’Neal v. Drown, 21 Ala.'482; TVittich v. Traun, 27 Ala. 562; Dobbins v. Harrison, •'3L Ala. 162 ; 15 Wendell, 557.
    3. At common law, a justice of the peace had no civil jurisdiction. — Detner v. Marshall, 17 Ala. '836'; Ellis v. White, 25 Ala. 540; 7 ' Wendell, 435. Under the constitution of this State, (art. N."§ 10’,) bis civil jurisdiction is limited-'to cases in which the amount in controversy does not exceed fifty dollars. To -allo-w the parties, by such a device as appears in this case, to evade this constitutional provision, would enable them- to-do indirectly what they could not -do directly, and-to perpetrate a fraud on-the jurisdiction of the justice.* Moreover, consent of the .parties cannot give jurisdiction of a - subject-matter prohibited by law. — Wyatt v. ■ Judge, 7 ¡Porter, 37.-; Winn v. :Freele, 19 Ala. 171; Merrill v. Jones, 8 Porter, 554; Oaldey w Aspimoall, 3- Comstock, 552.
    C. D. HühsoN, contra,,
    
    cited Nibbs v. Moody,Stew. & P.,198; Winston-v. Majors, 6 Ala. 659.
   A. J. WALKER, C. J.

The only question óí this case is, whether,a justice has jurisdiction over-suits upon the several -notes, each under fifty dollars, into '.which a debt exceeding fifty dollars is divided. We decide the question in the affirmative. The jurisdiction of a justice of the peace extends to causes in which the amount in*.controversy does not exceed fifty dollars. — Constitution of the State of Alabama, art. V. § 10. Where -suits are brought upon notes-.for less than fifty dollars, the amount in- controversy is under fifty dollars, notwithstanding each note may be 'for a part of a debt exceeding that amount. The splitting .up of a debt into sums under fifty dollars, involves no fraud upon the jurisdiction of the court. The creditor may lawfully, by his own separate act, bring by a receipt a debt over fifty dollars within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace; and a fortiori .may the same thing be done by the concurrent act of thc-creditor. and debtor, in dividing a debt into several-debts, each for an amount under fifty dollars. These ..prepositions are well sustained by the authorities, and - we >ne'ed not elaborate them.— Fortescue v. Spencer, 2 Ired. Law, 63; Dew v. Eastham, 5 Yerg. 297; Nibbs v. Moody, 5 St. & P. 198; King v. Dougherty, 2 St. 487; Baird v. Nichols, 2 Port. 186. This court said, in Nibbs v. Moody, supra, that there was nothing, either"in'the constitution, or in the act defining the jurisdiction of-a- justice,- to prevent the parties from reducing a debt, originally for more, to a less sum, and making it the amount in controversjr: and that'that might be done fey the joint ¿act of the parties, dividing the sum into new notes, by payment of part, and entering a credit on the note, or by the creditor’s voluntary relinquishment of part. This statement of the law is entitled to our fullest approbation, both on account of its obvious correctness, and the long and uninterrupted acquiescence in it for more than twenty years.

.Affirmed.