Case Name: HILLERY-ATKINS BUICK CO. v. COX et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1926-05-04
Citations: 119 Okla. 75
Docket Number: No. 16668
Parties: HILLERY-ATKINS BUICK CO. v. COX et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 75–76

Head Matter:
HILLERY-ATKINS BUICK CO. v. COX et al.
No. 16668
Opinion Filed May 4, 1926.
Rehearing Denied July 13, 1926.
H. B. Lockett, for plaintiff in error.
J. W. Marshall, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Opinion, by
LOGSDON, C.
The sole ground of error alleged by plaintiff is that the trial court erred in not granting a permanent injunction as prayed for by plaintiff.
It appears that defendant, J. D. Cox, had procured five separate judgments against the plaintiff in justice court, each for the sum of $200. Each of these cases was appealed to the district court except one, wliicn was appealed to the county court. On such appeals judgment again wtent against the instant plaintiff in each of the five cases for $200. After these judgments had become final, and executions were about to be levied toi enforce their collection, the instant action was brought by plaintiff to enjoin the levy of such executions and the collection of such judgments.
Plaintiff's contention appears to be that because each claim matured about 28 days before action was commenced in the justice court, plaintiff in those actions was entitled to six per cent, interest on the claim, and that, there!ore, the amount which he was entitled to recover exceeded $200, and (he justice cf the peace was without jurisdiction in each and all of the actions. A sufficient answer to this contention is that the plaintiff in those actions in the justice court did not claim any interest, hut merely asked for judgment fo*r the Sum of $200. Each judgment was for $200 and no more. Therefore, under -the constitutional and statutory provisions of this state, the justice co-urt clearly had jurisdiction in each of the actions, and the district and county courts on appeal likewise had jurisdiction. The instant plaintiff cannot defeat the jurisdiction of the justice of the -peace by insisting than the plaintiff in those actions was entitled to interest which he did not claim, and for which no judgment was rendered. Bank of Buffalo v. Venn, 68 Okla. 43, 171 Pac. 450; Rives et al. v. Ada Electric & Gas Co., 91 Okla. 275, 217 Pac. 447.
There is no merit in this petition in error, and the judgment of the district court dissolving the temporary injunction and denying injunctive relief is in al'l things affirmed.
By (he Court: It is so ordered.
Note. — See 35 C. J. p. 521. § 87.