The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1880-01-24
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Reported weekly by 4. w. Jenkins,
Attorney at F,aH.
j. IL. BURROw, ct al.

j. IL. BURROw, ct al.
! VS..
l.. ID. SAUNDERS.
Error to the Circuit Court of Lee county,
Hon. j. a. Green, Judge.
The defendant in error, as landlord, OBJ
tanned a writ of seizure before Il Justice
of the Peace against his tenant for rent due,
and made J. II. Burrow, and others, defen-
dants on the ground of their INTEREST," in the
produce seized. The defendants propound-
ed their claims before the Justice, who rem
dered thercupon the judgment mentioned
/ in the opinion. The plaintiffs in error
| brought the case by ccrtiorari to the Cir
/ cult Court, and the defendant in error
moved to dismiss on the ground that the
writ was inapplicabIe to writ of seizure
| under the Agricultural Lien Law, and that
no error was in the record or proceedings
before the Justice, which motion was
sustained.
W. j. Cole and Blair Il Clifton, for plain
tiH in error.
J. d. Barton and Nugcnt Il Neville. for
defendant in error.
CAMPBELL, j.
Held
l. Section 1896 of the Code provides that
"all eases decided by aJusticc of the Peace
may, within six Drnths thereafter. on good
cause shown by petition supported by atii
davit. be removed 10 The Circuit Court of
the county by Il writ of certiOrari," etc. |
There is nothing in the Act entitled an Act |
to provide for Agricultural liens, and for
other purposes, approved April 18th, 1876. |
inconsistent with this provision of the
Code and, therefore, it was admissible to
remove the ease decided by Justice of the
Peace to the Circuit Court by writ of
certiorar.
.. The case having been removed to the
Circuit Court of the county, the Court
should have examined tho questions of law
''on the face of the record and proceed
ings." and should have affirmed or reversed
the judgment of the Justice, etc. Instead
Of this the Court dismissed the rertiorari.
This was not proper, hut if the same result
was attained as should have been. if The
question of law presented by the face Of
The record and proceedings had been cx- :
lmined, the Judgment of the Circuit Court
,hould not be disturbed, whatever may
nave been the view which produced it.
3. The fair construction of the Judgment !
If the Justice of the Peace. from a view Of I
he whole record of the proceedings before !
lim is, that the money due the plaintiff in =
he suit was to be made out of the cotton !
# the cotton over the sum necessary TO pay h
he plaintiff snOuld be applied 10 the pay $
nent Of costs, and that for any balance Of I
he costs not thus paid, execution should :
% against the defendants.
4. The Justice had no right to give any q
Judgment against the defendants for the i
um due the plaintiff, other than a judy G
nent TO be satisfied out Of the cotton seized is
n the proceedings. u
s. He had a right to adjudge the costs 2
gainSt the defendants. and did so. direct
lg the application to their payment OF any Il
um arising from the sale of the cotton v
fer satisfying the demands of the plain
In.
6. The statute confines the judgment TO
be property seized, and the claim of the
laintii in the suit as set forth in his aft
avit, was made against Rains as his debt
r, aud not against the plaintiffs in error,
tho were named a. having some interest in ID
r claim upon the cotton against which the
lainiid asserted a permanent right, and :,
Tho were summoned 10 contest with the l