Court Opinion

ID: 9811947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:33:43.629524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:04.128058
License: Public Domain

Clark, O. J.,
concurs that Raisin v. Thomas, 88 N. C., and Meneeley v. Craven, 86 N. C., should be overruled, but finds no authority in the Constitution for the doctrine of “derivative jurisdiction.” It has been created solely by judicial construction. The jurisdiction of the Superior Court is fixed by the Constitution and contains no limitation because the case may have been previously tried in another court. When the case gets into the Superior Court, its jurisdiction is general and unlimited, and it can make no difference whether the case was brought into the Superior Court by summons or by appeal. In either event, the case is in that court, which has full jurisdiction to give an adequate remedy. I am, therefore, of an opinion that judgment should be rendered against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant for the excess of the counterclaim pleaded and proven over and above the amount of the claim proven to be due the plaintiff by the defendant.
If on appeal from the justice of the peace to the Superior Court the inquiry were confined to the question whether error *402bad been committed in tbe court below, there would be a logical basis for tbe doctrine of “derivative jurisdiction.” But on sucb appeal tbe trial is de novo and it is proceeded witb precisely as if it bad been begun in tbe Superior Court, without any consideration as to whether the action of the justice was erroneous or not. Tbe^e is therefore no reason to restrict the remedy to tbe limits of tbe jurisdiction of tbe justice of the peace. The case is tried exactly like any other in tbe Superior Court, and tbe remedy should not be restricted to that which might have been granted by a justice of the peace.