Case Name: John G. F. Powell v. John Hyndman
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1888-09-21
Citations: 29 Ill. App. 179
Docket Number: 
Parties: John G. F. Powell v. John Hyndman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 179–180

Head Matter:
John G. F. Powell v. John Hyndman.
Replevin—Affidavit—Jurisdiction of County Court—Neu> Trial.
Although the affidavit for a writ of replevin places the value of the property at a sum which brings it within the jurisdiction of the County Court, if the evidence shows that the value is such as to place it beyond such jurisdiction, it is error for said court to overrule an objection to its jurisdiction.
[Opinion filed September 21, 1888.]
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Greene County; the Hon. L. Larkin, Judge, presiding.
Mr. Henry 0. Withers, for appellant.
In suing out the writ of replevin John Hyndmán filed his affidavit that the goods were of the value of §fi!5, thus giving the County Court apparent jurisdiction to try the cause, but on the trial it appeared by the evidence of both John Iiyndtnan and William Hyndman that the goods replevied exceeded in value 81,000, and were worth in fact 82,900. This was brought to the attention of the County Court in a motion by defendant to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter, which motion the court overruled and thereby, as we claim, exceeded its jurisdiction and rendered an unlawful judgment, which, on this point alone, should be reversed.
A judgment of a court having no jurisdiction of the subject-matter is a nullity. Williams v. Blankenship, 12 Ill. 122; Randolph County v. Ralls, 18 Ill. 31. The County Court has no jurisdiction exceeding 81,000. Statute, Chap. 37, Sec. 120; Haines v. O’Connor, 5 Ill. App. 213.
Ho appearance for appellee.

Opinion:
Wall, P. J.
This was an action of replevin, brought in the County Court of Greene county. The affidavit for the writ fixed the value of the property at §615, but the evidence upon the trial showed clearly that the value was greatly in excess of §1,000.
The verdict was for plaintiff, and upon motion for new trial the point was raised that the court had no jurisdiction by reason of the amount involved.
This was overruled, erroneously, and the judgment will therefore be reversed and tlie cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.