Case ID: iowa_3/html/0261-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Stockton, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Griffin v. Moss.
    "Whenever final judgment is rendered before a justice of the peaee, a party may appeal; and the right of appeal is allowed 'him, whether the judgment complained of is one of law or of fact.
    Where an action was commenced before a justice of the peace, by attachment, and the entry in the docket of the justice read as follows: “ Panties appeared, January 8th, 1855. Trial had before G- W. Buttles, justice <o£ the peace. On examination, it was found that the defendant had not legal notice, md.that the attachment was not legally served. Therefore, judgment was rendered against plaintiff for fifty dollars and fifty-five cents damages, and costs of amt,” from which judgment the plaintiff appealed to the District Court; and where the defendant moved in the District Court to dismiss the appeal, for the following reasons: “1. No question of fact was presented to the court below for decision, nor was any question of fact decided in that court; therefore, an appeal will not lie. 2. To correct any error in law, or irregularity in the justice’s court, it can only be brought into the District Court by writ of error which motion was sustained by the court, and the appeal dismissed; Meld, That the plaintiff was entitled to have the cause reheard on its merits in the District Court; and that for this purpose, an appeal was the regular and proper mode of obtaining relief.
    
      Appeal from the Alamahee District Court.
    
    This action was brought before a justice of the peace by attachment, to recover the sum of $12.70. The entry made by the justice in his docket, is as follows: “ Parties appeared, January 8th, 1855. Trial had before Gr. W. Buttles, justice of the peace. On examination it was found, that the defendant had not legal notice, and that the attachment was not egally served. Therefore, judgment was rendered against plaintiff for fifty dollars and fifty-five cents, damages, and costs of suit.” From this judgment, plaintiff appealed to the District Court. The defendant moved to dismiss the appeal, for the following reasons: 1. No question of fact was p're.-. sented to the court below, for decision, nor was any question of fact decided in the said court below ; therefore, an appeal will not lie. 2. To correct any error in law, or irregularity m the justice’s court below, it can only be brought into the District Court by writ of error. The District Court sustained the motion, and dismissed the appeal. To which plaintiff excepted, and appeals to this court.
    
      W. M. Tripp, for the appellant.
    
      W. T. Barker, for the appellee.
   Stockton, J.

The Code of Iowa (§ 2828) gives the aggrieved party an appeal from all final judgments of a j ustice of the peace. The judgment in the present cause, has all the -essential requisites of a final judgment. The plaintiff wa¿3 entitled to have the case reheard on the merits, iu the District Court, and for this purpose, an appeal was the regular and proper mode of obtaining relief.

Where no question of fact is involved, and the testimony of witnesses is not needed, the party aggrieved by an erroneous decision of the justice, on a matter of law, or by other illegality in the proceedings, may bring the question of law for revision before the District Court, by writ of error. Code, § 2349. But there is no power in the District Court, to control the party in the choice of his remedy. Whenever final judgment is recovered, he may appeal; and the right of appeal is allowed him, whether the judgment complained of, if final, is one of law or fact.

In the present case, we put entirely out of sight, whether the decision of the justice was right or wrong; whether any question of fact was decided or not; and whether the plaintiff might not have had a complete remedy by writ of error. We look only at the question, whether the judgment was final ? and being satisfied that it was final, we think that the judgment of the District Court in dismissing the appeal was erroneous, and ought to be reversed.

Judgment reversed.