Case ID: tenn_17/html/0030-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Green J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dixon vs. Caruthers.
    A justice of the peace has jurisdiction to render a judgment to the amount of one hundred dollars, or under, upon promissory notes or bills single; there* fore, where the principal and interest amounted to more than one hundred dollars, and a judgment was rendered accordingly by the justice, it was held, that the judgment was void.
    Where the judgment of a justice, rendered for more than one hundred dollars, is taken by certiorari to the circuit court, the plaintiff cannot remit or release so much of his demand as will reduce it below one hundred dollars, thereby to give the court jurisdiction.
    A certiorari granted by two justices of the peace, more than twenty days after the rendition of the judgment, and returnable to the circuit court, ought to be dismissed: the act of assembly authorizing two justices to grant the cer-tiorari does not extend the time within which it must issue.
    Where a certiorari ought to have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the court, but was not, and a verdict and judgment were rendered, from which, an appeal was taken to the supreme court: Held, that up to the time of the trial in the ciicuit court, the error of that court was against the defendants in error, therefore, they will recover their costs up to that time; but that in rendering the verdict and judgment, the court erred against the plaintiff in error, therefore* he will recover the costs of the supreme court, and the costs of entering* the judgment of the circuit court.
    On the 18th of December, 1827, Dixon, as surety of one Richardson, executed a note jointly with Richardson, to Marshall, for seventy-six dollars and twenty-five cents, payable on or before the 1st of January, 1829. On the 28th of October, 1834, defendants in error sued Dixon alone, before a justice of the peace of Smith county, to answer them in a plea of debt by note, for the sum of seventy-six dollars and twenty-five cents. On the Gth of December, 1834, the justice rendered judgment against Dixon “for seventy-six dollars and twenty-five cents, and interest from the 1st of January, 1829, and the costs.” The interest specified in the judgment would be twenty-four dollars and ninety cents, making the judgment amount to one hundred and one dollars fifteen cents, and costs. On the 29th of December; 1834, Dixon applied to two justices for a certiorari to bring proceedings into the circuit court, which was granted. In r . . ,. . . . . . , court, a motion was made to dismiss the certiorari, and also a motion to quash the proceedings of the justice. Both were discharged, and a new trial granted. The jury rendered a verdict for one hundred and seven dollars and thirteen cents. .The plaintiff remitted two dollars and fifty cents, and judgment was rendered for one hundred and four dollars and sixty-three cents. Dixon mo.ved in arrest of judgment, but “it appearing to the court,” says the record, “that on the trial, before the jury had retired from the bar, the plaintiff agreed to remit two dollars and fifty: cents on their demand; and after the jury rendered their verdict without allowing such credit, the plaintiffs did remit two dollars and fifty cents on their claim, the court thereupon overruled said motion in arrest of judgment.” From which judgment, this appeal in the nature of a writ of error is prosecuted.
    
      R. J. Meigs, for the plaintiff in error, insisted,
    1. That the justice had not jurisdiction of this demand, and consequently, that the circuit court had no authority to render the judgment from which this writ of error is prosecuted. He cited 10 Co. 76, as to jurisdiction of courts of common law: 1 Cond. Eng. B,. 462, as to courts of equity: 8 Eng. Com. L. R. 474, as to ecclesiastical courts: 21 Id. 444, as to criminal courts: 16 Id. 133.
    2. That this error cannot he corrected by a remittitur; no act of the party being capable of giving jurisdiction. The case in 6 Yerger, 332, does not touch the question. There the court had jurisdiction, but rendered judgment for more damages than the plaintiff claimed. The court very properly said this may he corrected, even in the court of errors, since it was no fault of the party.
    The circuit court should have sent the papers back to the justice with a procedendo, as never having been really out of his custody; or it should have stricken the cause from the docket, and ordered the clerk to deliver them to the plaintiff.
    
      J. S. Yerger, for defendant in error,
    Contended, that the judgment of the justice upon appeal or certiorari to the circuit court, could he corrected by remitting or releasing such amount of the claim, as would reduce the claim below one hundred dollars. ' That proceedings before justices are not regarded with as much strictness as proceedings in courts of record. ' He cited 6 Yerger’s Rep. 332.
   Green J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought upon a note before a justice of the peace. Judgment was given for principal and interest, amounting to more than one hundred dollars. The judgment was rendered by the justice on the 6th of December, 1834, and on the 28th of the same month, two justices of the peace granted a certiorari to take the case into the circuit court; a motion was made to dismiss the certiorari, .which the court refused to do. The cause was tried, and a verdict was rendered for one hundred and seven dollars and thirteen cents. The plaintiff offered to remit two dollars and fifty cents of the justices judgment, which would have reduced it below one hundred dollars; but this was not done. After the verdict was rendered, a remittur was entered for two dollars and fifty cents, and judgment was rendered for one hundred and four dollars sixty-three cents, from which judgment, thé defendant appealed to this court.

1. The justice had .no jurisdiction of this case, and consequently, the circuit court had no authority to give the judgment. The plaintiff could not, by remitting part of the verdict, give the court jurisdiction.

2. The certiorari should have been dismissed. The act of 1833, c. 65, §2, does not extend the time within which two justices may grant a certiorari, and more than twenty days having elapsed after the rendition of the judgment; before the action of the two justices, they had no authority to grant the Certiorari. The circuit court could not, therefore, by this ... J unauthorized act of the justices, acquire jurisdiction of the cause. Vanleer vs. Johnson, 7 Yerg. Rep. As there has been error against both parties, the costs will be divided. Up to the time of the trial in the circuit court, the error of that court had been against the defendants in error; they will, therefore, recover the costs up to that time. In rendering die verdict and judgment, the circuit court erred against the plaintiff in error, who will recover the costs ol this court, and of the judgment of the circuit court. Let the judgment be reversed, and proceeding to render such judgment as the circuit court ought to have given, dismiss the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.