The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-01-20
ITO be reported. ]


q. y. WINnusB, - AL,
w. G. CHINAULT.
Error to the Circuit Court OF Tishomingo
County Hon. !. \. Green, Judge
On appeal to the "circuit court from JUS
tice Of the peace, where the amount in con
troyersy exceeds the sum of fifty dollars,
either party shall be entitled to an appeal to
Ms supreme court" Code 1880, 1854.
kKae opinion is given in full.
AWMrhe defendant in error recovered before a
AHI>rjce of the peace against the plaintiffs a
\ Judgment for over $50 The latter appealed
u the circuit court, and n verdict was there
rendered against the appellants for $40.
They moved for 4 new trial, and the Circuit
.jad-e on the hearing of the motion, being
opinion that so was the proper amount
he recovered, the plaintiff below RENTED
exceeding that amount. and, the new
ia being refused execution was awarded
SIS for 500 and costs. The defendants
: n below sued out writ oferror to reverse this
4udment, claiming that they owe nothing
BAD the question for our consideration is
Whether this court has jurisdiction.
- In Ward V. Scott % Miss. X. S26, we
S held that this court had no jurisdiction to
review a case taken from a Justice Of the
q peace to the circuit court when the iudg-
= meutin the latter court did not. exclusive
b al cots. exceed so.
= The Judgment here does not exceed that
amount, and, under the rule applied in that
MCase we are without jurisdiction.
"a Il is insisted. however. that rs the YER
Mic MAS for greater amount than $50, it
III rl> not IN the power OF the plaintiff below
{, 70 remit the excess and thus deprive his
#w iverSarIes OF the right of appeal to this
Z aIa 10
Epurpose of preventing an appeal, and against
the consent of the other party. it would not
have the effect TO deprive him of has right to
have the cause reviewed in this court. But (
that does not not appear to be the case
here. The remiJtitur was entered in cons
sequence Of 2 motion made by the plaintiffs
in error for new trial, and was caused 5y
the decision OF the Circuit Judge, that the
verdict beyond the amount of So was ex-
cesslve. IL appears therefQ<e, to have been
g. -.ssy an 1rf445a.ag entertained by the
~ ~ q Judge that il was necessary to sub
1e,e ends of Justice. Surprising the
Euit Judge 10 be right in this opinion, 1t
NFould be wrong to prevent the remlttltur
and compel the party to suffer reversal
here for an error which he was willing to
correct in the court below.
Circuit Judge should not permit
remittitur to be entered at the mere will of
the plaintiff, when there is no more reason
= for releasing the party from the amount
sremitted than from the remainder of the
recovery. when the effect of the remittitur
would be to deprive the party ofhis right to
anDeaI and if such claim were allowed,
ana there appeared no just ground for it,
upon proper exception taken, it would be
disalIowed here, at least to the extent of
giving the party his right TO appeal.
A remittitur entered after the judgment
would have no effect To prevent an appeal,
Mfnce our jurisdiction depends on the
mount Of the judgment.
In Thompson v Butler 95 U. 5. R., GA,
ae Supreme Court of the United States
decided the question involved in this
opinion and reached conclusion not mate
rally different from that reached by US.
Writ Of error dismissed.
M Green, for plaintiff in error.
Fred Beall and L. Brame, contra.
-a To be reported.