Case Name: John Roach, Pl'tff in Error, vs. Salina Moulton, Def't in Error
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1849-01
Citations: 1 Chand. 187
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Roach, Pl’tff in Error, vs. Salina Moulton, Def't in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Chandler
Volume: 1
Pages: 187–190

Head Matter:
John Roach, Pl’tff in Error, vs. Salina Moulton, Def't in Error.
Tho process, issued in replevin, under the Territorial Statutory provision, requires it to be issued in the name of the United States, '"and if not so done no jurisdiction is acquired.
It is far safer in an action of replevin, when brought before a Justice, to allege in the affidavit to procure the process, the value of thfe property sought to be recovered; because 'the jurisdiction of those 'courts may 'depend, (in such a case) upon showing affirmatively, and in the first instance, that the Justice is within the jurisdiction of the Statute.
“Error to the District Court of I'ówa County.
This was an action of replevin brought by the defendant in error before a Justice of Iowa County, who rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff below, the defendant in error. A certiorari wa's brought to the District Court of Iowa, and that Court affirmed the judgment of the Justice.
Various errors were assigned by the plaintiff in error in this Court, some of which were taken in the Court below'; one of which was, that the process issued by the Justice did not run in the name of the United States; and that unless so done no jurisdiction was obtained over the subject matter of the suit.
Another of which was, that no jurisdiction was acquired by the Justice, because the affidavit on. which the original process issued did not state the value of the property for which the replevin was brought.
These were the essential points, decided by the Supreme Court, and a more 'extended statement of the case is not required in order to a correct understanding of it.
Ldkin, of counsel for the plaintiff in error,
insisted that the Justice had acquired no jurisdiction to issue the first process.
1st. Because there was no value stated in the„affidavit of the property sought to be replevied. •
2d. That the process was not served as directed by Statute.
Knowlton, for the defendant in error,
argued as to the first objection to the jurisdiction of the Justice, that by the provisions of the act in regard to the issue of process, under the article regulating the action of replevin, it did slot require that the process should issue in the name of the United States — Section 334, Revised Statutes.
To the second objection he referred to the Statute, page 335, and claimed that no requirement was made that the value of the property sought to be replevied should be specified in the affidavit, upon which the writ issued.
He also insisted that where, as in this case, intermediate questions had arisen befoi'e the Justice, in the joining' of the issue, and which were decided and over-ruled by the Justice, and the parties' joined an issue and went* to trial on the merits, a certiorari would not lie to correct the errors of decision, on the questions arising intermediately, and to this point he cited 6th JFEU’s Rep., 621 — 1st Denio, 222.

Opinion:
Bythe Court
Jackson, J.
This was an action of reple-vin brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, before Thomas James, Esq., a Justice of the Peace of Iowa county, to recover possession of a horse. The action was tried before the said Justice, and a judgment rendered by him in favor of the defendant in error; where upon the said plaintiff in error sued out his writ of cer-tiorari to the Iowa County District Court, where the. judgment of the said Justice James was affirmed. To re-veise the judgment of the District Court, the plaintiff in error has prosecuted a writ of error to this Court. There are several grounds of error assigned; but we are entirely satisfied that the second ground of error assigned is well taken* and should procure a reversal of the judgment; wé do not deem it necessary to advert particularly to the other grounds of objection taken to the proceedings. The second error alleged is, that " the writ of replevin is clearly defective in this; that it does not run in the name of the United States, which is an absolute requisition of the Statute*"
The provision of the Statute here referred to* is that contained in the 7th section of the Sd article of the " Act concerning Justices of the Peace," on page 323, which is in the following words: " all process issued by Justices of the Peace shall run in the name of the United States, (be dated on the day it is issued, and shall be signed by the Justice, granting the same, and be directed to the sheriff or any constable of the proper county."
This is an imperative provision of the Statute, designed to have universal application to " all process," issued by Justices of the Peace; and the statutory form of a writ of replevin, given in a subsequent portion of the " act concerning Justices of the Peace," in the article "regulating the action of replevin," on page 334 of the revised Statutes, cannot reasonably be construed so as to render inoperative the express provision referred to. The form of the writ, therefore, must be controlled by, and conform to, this provision.
As to the question of jurisdiction raised, without under- tjiking to decide it. in this case, we. are clearly of opinion that in an action of replevin, it is much the safer practice to allege the value of property in t^ie affidavit, which is the foundation of tire proceeding, and thus affirmatively ¡ffiow in the first instance, that the Justice has jurisdiction.
The judgment of tijie Court below is reversed-