Case ID: ala_77/html/0544-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      OLOPTON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Baker v. Keith.
    
      Special Action on the Case by Landlord, against Purchaser of Tenants Crop with notice of Lien.
    
    1. Bill of exceptions; rulings on demurrer. — A ruling on demurrer is part of the record proper, and' is not matter for a bill of exceptions; and when shown only by the bill of exceptions, this court will not consider it for any purpose.
    2. Costs, in actions for torts, and appeals from magistrates. — Tn an action to recover damages for a tort, if the plaintiff does not recover more than twenty dollars, he can recover no more costs'than damages, in the absence of a certificate by the presiding judge that he ought to have recovered more (Code, § 3129); but this provision does not apply to actions commenced in a justice’s court, and removed by appeal or certiorari into the Circuit Court, as to which special provision is made for the taxation or apportionment of the costs (Code, § 3124).
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Talladega.
    Tried before the Hon. Leroy F. Box.
    This action was brought by Joseph H. Keith, against William Baker, and was commenced before a justice of the peace. By the statement of the cause of action filed in the justice’s court, the plaintiff claimed $25 as damages for the defendant’s alleged conversion of fifty bushels of corn, part of the crop raised by one Culpepper, on which plaintiff claimed a lien for rent. The justice rendered judgment against the plaintiff, from which the plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court; and he there filed an amended complaint, being a special countin case. The judgment-entry only recites a trial on issue joined, and a verdict for plaintiff, for $15 ; on which the court rendered judgment in his favor for that sum, with all the costs. There is a bill of exceptions in the record, which states that the defendant demurred to the amended complaint, and excepted to the overruling of his demurrer. The overruling of the demurrer, and. the judgment for costs, are now assigned as error.
    Cecil Browne, for appellant.
    Bowdon & Knox, contra.
    
   OLOPTON, J.

The record does not show any minute-entry of the judgment of the Circuit Court on the demurrer to the amended complaint. It appears only from the bill of exceptions. In such case, this court will not pass on the demurrer, nor consider the assignment of overruling it. — Carter v. Wilson, 61 Ala. 434; Petty v. Dill, 53 Ala. 641.

Section 3124 of Code 1876 makes special provision for the disposition of the costs, on appeals to the Circuit Court from the judgments of justices of the peace. It provides: “ If the defendant appeals, or obtains a writ of certiorari, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is for less than the judgment of the justice, the court may tax either party with the costs, or both parties with any portion thereof. If the plaintiff appeals, and does not recover more than the amount for which the justice rendered judgment, he must be taxed with the costs.” These special provisions leave no field, as to the taxing of the costs on appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, for the operation of section 3129. The two sections are in irreconcilable conflict. The latter section is penal in its character, and is intended to punish plaintiffs for bringing frivolous actions to recover damages for torts. It applies to suits brought in common-law courts of record, and has no application to a suit originating in the justice’s court.

Affirmed.