Case ID: ohio_15/html/0556-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Birchard, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lawrence S. Humiston and others vs. John Anderson’s Administrators.
    Jt is error in the Common Pleas to dismiss an appeal from a Justice of the Peace, for the reason that his transcript docs not state the form of action, or that he has omitted to send up a bill of particulars.
    This is a Writ of Error directed to the Supreme Court for the County of Trumbull.
    The facts of the case are contained in a very voluminous record, but may be stated in few words, thus:
    On the 17th June, 1844, the plaintiff and defendants entered an amicable action before a justice of the peace in the township of Bazetta. The defendants in error filed their bill of particulars, claiming one hundred dollars, and, by consent of parties, the cause was continued, and finally tried and judgment rendered for plaintiff, July 1, 1844, for $ 17 and costs of suit. On the 3d day of July, 1844, the plaintiff entered bail for appeal, and, on the 8th day of said July, took his transcript and filed it in the Court of Common Pleas, which commenced its session six days before — on the 2d day of July. -
    In Bank.
    Dec. Term, 1846.
    At the succeeding term of Octob.er, and on the 10th day 6f the term, an entry w'as made in the journals of the Common Pleas in these words: “ On motion to the Court by Mr. Tut- ‘ tie, counsel for the appellee, it is-ordered that the appeal taken ‘ in this cáse be quashed, for the the reason that the transcript ‘ of the proceedings of the justice, filed in this case, does in no ‘ manner set forth the cause of the plaintiff’s action nor the ‘ nature or the items of the plaintiff’s demand, and that no bill ‘ of particulars and no statement of the nature or items of the ‘ plaintiff’s claim has been filed in this Court; whereupon, it is ‘ considered that the appellee recover of the plaintiff his cost ‘ to be taxed, and that this cause be remanded to the justice, to ‘ be proceeded in as if no appeal had been taken.”
    , At the next succeeding term, a motion was make to reinstate the proceedings, which was' refused, and a bill of exceptions was taken, from which, with the transcript and1 journal entry, the above facts appear, and, also, that, the-bill of particulars had been filed with the transcript, but, being in the form of an instrument- upon which other payments were due, the plaintiff had taken it from the files, and that the plaintiff or his counsel had no knowledge of Mr. Tuttle’s motion or the order of Court till he offered to file his declaration within rules, after the .close of the October term, 1844.
    Errors were assigned, and, upon the circuit, the Supreme' Court reversed the decision, of the Common Pleas and reinstated the appeal; to reverse which decision, this writ is prosecuted.
    
      
      McConnell &/■ Tuttle, for Plaintiffs in Error.
    
      M. &f C. G. Sutliff,-. for Defendants in Error.
   Birchard, J.

• There is really but one question in this case, and that is decisive of its merits. Although more. haye been argued, with great industry, we shall notice but one, not solely for want of. time, but because,- also, their, determination either way will, not' affect the decision. ""Was the appeal-dismissed rightfully ? The facts stated in the journal entry, as the ground of the dismissal, are two — ’

First: Neglect,.by the Justice, to state the form of action and nature of the claim.

Second: Neglect to send up the bill of particulars.

The first furnished no pretext-for quashing the appeal. No magistrate’s proceedings are void for a defect of this description. If it were held sufficient to avoid his judgment, on certiorari, very few justice’s judgments would be worth any thing. Superior courts have never required technicality at the hands of Justices of the Peace, and were they to attempt it, the thing would be found impracticable. Those officers are not, in general, professional men, who are familiar with legal technicalities and the subtle niceties which distinguish the different forms of common law actions : and the public welfare does not require that they should attempt to live up to nice rules, which, in their courts, would subserve no great good, and in which they are.not supposed to be well versed.

' The other ground of dismissal was as bad as the first. The statute directs magistrates to send up the bill of particulars with their transcripts. Suppose he had neglected to do so, as the Court found, (incorrectly, it seems.) ■ This fault should not have lost to the plaintiffs the right to appeal, which they had perfected. It did not appear to the Court that the plaintiffs were even in default. Had it so appeared, all that could have been done with propriety, would have been to direct them to become nonsuit.

An objection has been'urged to' our taking any notice of any matters except what transpired on the motion 'to reinstate the proceedings. To this it is sufficient to .observe, that the before us purports to be a record, and all of the Record, of the entire proceedings ■ had in- this cause, Before the Court of Comiiion.Pleas. The Supreme.; Court, únder the general'assignment’ of errors, were therefore bound • to inquire whether any .error had-occurred; Which' appeared on' the face, of the record, and they found the one we-have noticed. . • '

Judgment Affirmed! ■