Case Name: Cake v. White, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1886-10
Citations: 91 Mo. 79
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cake v. White, Appellant.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 79–81

Head Matter:
Cake v. White, Appellant.
Municipal Corporation: city of Hannibal ; recorder, jurisdiction of. Express power is given to the recorder of the city of Hannibal, by the act of March 8, 1873 (Acts 1873, p. 349), relating to its charter, to hear and determine all actions for the recovery of personal property, where the amount in controversy does not exceed one hundred dollars; and the recorder’s court was not abolished by section 43, of article 6, of the constitution of 1875.
Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. IíoN. Theo. Brace, Judge.
Affirmed.
Harrison & Mahan for appellant.
(1) By the fifth section of the act of the General Assembly, entitled “an act to amend and reduce into one act the several acts incorporating the city of Hannibal,” approved February 14, 1851 (Sess. Acts 1851, p. 335, sec. 5), jurisdiction was given to the recorder of the city of Hannibal to hear, try and determine all actions for the recovery of personal property, alleged to be unlawfully detained by any defendant, when the amount in con--troversy shall not exceed the sum of one hundred dollars; actions in such cases to be conducted after the rules governing such actions in the circuit court. (2) This jurisdiction was given to the recorder by virtue of the second section of article 1, of the constitution of Missouri, vesting judicial power in such “inferior tribunals as the General Assembly may, from time to time, establish.” R. S., Mo. 1845; Amend, to Const., art. 1, sec. 2, p. 50. (3) The jurisdiction in actions for the recovery of specific personal property, given to justices of the peace, was, at that time, limited to fifty dollars (Sess. Acts 1849, p. 47), and this special tribunal was established for the benefit of that special locality, and created a special court for the purpose. Simmons v. Austin, 36 Mo. 307. (4) This fifth section of the act of 1851, above recited, was repealed, and the. tribunal was abolished by section 1, article 6, of the constitution of 1875, entitled judicial department, which declares where the judicial power of the state shall be vested, and the forty-second section of the same article declares that all courts now existing in this state, not named or provided for in this constitution, shall continue until the expiration of the term of office of the several judges. This tribunal was a court, “a place where justice is administered.” 1 Bouvier’s Law Die. [14 Ed.] 383. The terms for the office of recorder of Hannibal were annual. Sess. Acts of 1851, art. 8, sec. 1, p. 335. The court had no jurisdiction.
David H. Eby for respondent.
The constitution of 1875 did not undertake to abridge the jurisdiction of municipal corporation courts. It either abolished or provided for the abolition of all-courts then “existing in this state, not named or provided for in this constitution.” The recorder’s court of the city of Hannibal, as a municipal corporation court, being “named” in this constitution, its existence and jurisdiction, so far as the constitutional provisions are concerned, remained intact. Const. Mo., 1875, art. 6, secs. 1, 42; Dillon on Mun. Oorp. [Ed.- 1872] sec. 357; Sess. Acts Mo. 1873, p. 246, secs. 56, 57; pp. 248, 249, secs. 18, 25;' State ex rel. Van Brown v. Van Every, 75 Mo. 533.

Opinion:
Black, J.
By the act of March 8, 1873, entitled "an act to consolidate into one act the various acts in relation to the charter of the city of Hannibal," express power is given bo the recorder to hear and determine all-actions for the recovery of personal property where the amount in controversy does not exceed one hundred dollars. Acts of 1873, p. 249. The recorder's court was not abolished by the constitution of 1875, for section 1, of article 6, in express terms provides for the continued existence of municipal corporation courts, and hence the recorder's court did not cease to exist, by force of section 42, of the same article. That court continued with its former jurisdiction; and the motion to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction was, therefore, properly overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
All concur.