Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-06-15
MEMPHIS APPEAL
CONDENSED DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT.

CONDENSED DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT.
Brownsville, June Term, Is6s.
BY II. CLAY KING, ESQ.
Veuable VS.. SnOddy.
This cause was decided at o former day
| Of the term. It was q bill in Chancery
TO set aside the satisfaction of executions
from Justice of the Peace on the ground
that the payment to the officer who sat-
isfied the executions, was in Confederate
money. In the answer of the defend
| ants, they inserted 8 demurrer to the
| jurisdiction of the Court.
| Per euridm.-Smith, Judge.-The de-
murrer to the Jurisdiction being inserted
in the answer, is a nullity; and the de
| PENDANTS having answered, submit to the
jurisdiction thereby. And, such being
the case, it is not now decided whether
CbaBcery has, properly, Jurisdiction Of
such case or not.
| No. % -Skipw tn VS.. Johnson.
Facts: Johnson recovered judgment in
| forcible entry and detainer before jus
| tice Of the Peace. Skipwith prosecuted
certiOr0Ti to the Circuit Court, executing
| bond with security for one years rent
under the Code. The case not being
tried within the year, the Court required
| SkipWith to execute new bond and Sc
curity for another years rent, which not
being done, the Court dismissed the ceT-
| tiOrdri.
Held That the Code does not require,
in such a case, any other bond than the
one to secure one years rent, and to re-
quire an additional and different one is
error, for which reversal will be had.
No. 2i.-Willi2rns VS.. Wickersham.
Facts: Williams had Judgment and
execution against Wickersham. The
| Constable IN whose hands the Fl. "a. was
placed, endorsed ON the came one day
after the return day, satisfied and
placed the same among the papers. APP
plication was made to the Justice, (whO
! was the Constable who had the execu-
ton, hSving been since elected to the
offlce), for another f. ia. on the jadg.
menr, on the ground that the payment
was in Confederate money, and that the
entry of satisfaction on the fl. fa. was
nullity. And, this application being re-
| fused, this nldlddBsus was sought gsiDst
| the Justice.
Held: l. That under the facts Of this
case, the entry Of satisfaction is not held
as nullity for all purposes. The act
may have been done while the execution
was in life, although the endorsement
was made afterwards.
2. The remedy in this case is not by
mandamus-the remedy involving some
thing more than mere ministerial act.
No. 22.-WlIliams VS.. Inman, Gait s Co.
The plaintiff sued the defendants on
this paper: /" Received Of Inman, Gait
& Co. s407, to be RENTED to them at
Louisville, KY" There was judgment
final by default.
Held: That this paper does not, under
the Code, bear interest of itself, and
jury is necessary to assess the damages.
No 23.-Gates & Wood vs.. Htlding.
This Court will not supersede an inter-
loeUtOry order of a Chancellor dissOlving
an il junction, where the compliments
right to relief is doubtful.
No 2i.-Berlin ". Overtcn.
On appeal, or appeal in the nature of
writ of error, the record must show that
it was prayed for, and granted by the
Court. A recital in the appeal bond to
that effect will not cure the defect. For
such defect the cause must be stricken
from the docket; but writ Of error may
be applied for.
No. 25.-Crow VS.. Cunningham.
Facts: Crow sued Cunningham before
a Justice of the Peace on a note, and OBJ
tanned judgment for 1929 so, from which
Cunningham appealed TO the Circuit
Court. \ the Circuit Court, Cunning
ham gave notice that he would insist, by
way Of set off, on the value Of four bales
of cotton delivered to Crow, for which
he claimed Crow was liable. The case
was submitted to jury, and Cunning
ham obtained verdict for 1893 IS, upon
which Judgment was rendered against
Crow, in favor Of Cunningham, after ex-
tinguishing the demand of Crow; from
which judgment Crow has appealed to
this Court.
Held l. That in cases OF appeals from
a Justice of the Peace to the Circuit
Court, the jurisdiction of the Circuit
Court is limited TO the Jurisdiction of the
Justice.
2. The Justice not having Jurisdiction
in this csse to render q judgment in favor
Of the defendant, the Circuit Court had
none.
The fact that the defence Of set-off
hSd not been relic on before the Justice,
can make no difference.
4. By the Code, 4l6l, the defendant,
before judgment, might have RENTED
the excess over the 1stiee's jurisdiction,
aud taken valid judgment within his
jurisdiction.
5. But having failed to do, the reBlitti-
IL. ho 81 80 =
ter Of jurisdiction, and the doctrine of
remittitur as allowed here stands on
different footing.
6 Under Code, AGO, If the sum found
by the Justice as q set-off exceeds his
Jurisdiction, the defendant may remit
the excess, aud take judgment fer the
balance; so, by section 4l62, il the de-
fendant's set-of after satisfying the
plaintiffs debt, exceed the Justices ju-
risdictiOn, the defendant may enter on
the Justices docket satisfaction of so
much OF his claim as the amount of the
plaintiffs demand asceTtained by the
Justice, aid tender the plaintiff re-
ceipt for the amount thus set of. in which
case Judgment shall be rendered in favor
OF the defendant for costs. But the JUS
tice has no power 10 render a judgment
for an amount beyond his Jurisdiction,
and this Court cannot create the same
by allowing remittituT here for the ex-
cess. Dickson VS. Carutbers, 9 Yer. 80.
state Docket of the Supreme Court.
The following are the causes on the
State docket of the Supreme Court at
Brownsville, from the Circuit Courts of
Shelby, Fayette, Carroll and Henry
counties, and from the Criminal Court
of Memphis. This docket will be called
peremptOrily on Monday, the 18th inst,
and will be disposed of on the first call,
in the order as the causes are stated be-
low:
L Holloway VS. The State.
2 Thompson VS.. The Stste.
3. NOkes VS. The State.
l. Wickham vs.. The stale.
:. Anderson VS. The ate.
6. Morton VS.. The state.
:. Wynne VS.. The Stale.
:. Myers VS. The STATE.
9. ThomL sDn W. The state.