Court Opinion

ID: 9812139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:37:16.976309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:18.381217
License: Public Domain

MekRIMON, C. J.
(dissenting): The Constitution (Art. 4, §27) provides that “the several Justices of the Peace shall have jurisdiction under such regulations, as the General Assembly shall prescribe for them, of civil actions founded on contract wherein the sum demanded shall not exceed two hundred dollars, and wherein the title to real estate shall not be in controversy,” &c.
The statute (The Code, §834) prescribes that “justices of the Peace shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all civil actions founded on contract except (1) wherein the sum demanded, exclusive of interest, exceeds two hundred dollars; (2) wherein the title to real estate is in controversy.”
The other statute (The Code, §922) prescribes that “The Superior Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil *429actions, whereof exclusive original jurisdiction is not given to some other Court,” &c.
This action began in the Superior Court, and the cause of action alleged is one hundred dollars, the balance due upon a promissory note executed by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is not alleged in the complaint, as amended, that the title to real estate is in controversy. It, therefore, plainly appeared, from the record, tha.t a Justice of the Peace had exclusive original jurisdiction of the cause of action, and the Superior Court could not have original jurisdiction of it. Both the Constitution and the statutes so provided. In such a case, parties cannot consent to give jurisdiction, nor can they waive objection to it, because the jurisdiction in such cases is settled and established by the law, and is not otherwise given.
When it appears from the record that the Court cannot have jurisdiction of the cause of action alleged in the pleading, it should, on motion of a party, or ex mero motu, dismiss the action, unless the defect can be cured by appropriate amendment asked for by a party. When they do, their acts are nugatory and void.
It is said, however, that the plaintiff brought his action before a Justice of the Peace, founded on the same cause of action; that the defendant there suggested and alleged that the title to real estate was in controversy, and it was so adjudged on appeal in the Superior Court and the action dismissed, and, therefore, the Superior Court had original jurisdiction conferred by the statute (The Code, §838). This, it seems to me, is a serious mistake. The Legislature could not so confer jurisdiction, because the Constitutional provision forbids it, certainly in effect. But properly interpreted, the statute does not so undertake or intend to provide.
It prescribes that, “When an action, before a Justice, is dismissed upon answer, and proof by the defendant that *430the title to real estate is in controversy in the case, the plaintiff may prosecute an action for the same cause in the Superior Court, and the-defendant shall not be admitted in that Court to deny- the jurisdiction by answering, contradicting his answer in the Justice’s Court.” This does not imply that the plaintiff may bring his action in the Superior Court and allege a cause of action for less than two hundred dollars arising upon contract, and the Court shall have jurisdiction of the same. It simply means that the plaintiff may so bring his action and allege his cause of action as admitted and settled as io its character, at the instance of the defendant in the Court of Justice of the Peace, and that, in the Superior Court, the defendant shall not be allowed or heard to deny his answer in the former Court, or to question the plaintiff’s claim as it is alleged. The plaintiff, in this action, should have alleged that, in connection with the debt alleged, the title to real estate came in question, and that it was so settled in the Court of the Justice of the Peace. This allegation, if it had been made in the complaint, the defendant could not put in question, because the statutory provision last cited would not allow him to do so. Thus it would have appeared upon the face of the pleading that the Court had jurisdiction.