Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Ala. 297

Williams v. Hinton

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1840

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1840-01-15

Writ of error to the County Court of Tuscaloosa County. WILLIAMS sued Hinton before a justice of the peace of Tuscaloosa county, and recovered judgment for fifty dollars. Hinton appealed to the county court; and Williams there filed a statement of his cause of action as follows : — i. For unjustly detaing a mule colt, the property of the plaintiff, of the value of fifty dollars. 2.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1840-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1944

7 state decisions

2018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

¶1— The warrant issued by the justice of the peace, calls on the defendant to answer a money demand, and! is in the usual form. The other proceedings do not seem to-have been irregular, until the case was removed to the county court, where the plaintiff files a statement of his cause of action,, the first count of which is in detinue', and the second may be considered as in aasumjjsitr

¶21. Under the several statutes, regulating the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, these magistrates are permitted, in certain-cases, to entertain jurisdiction of suits on contracts, for the delivery of specific articles, and to give judgment for the. proper sum in money. (Aikinrs Dig. 292.)

¶32.It is not considered, however, that they have jurisdiction of actions of detinue or trover, even in those cases where the value of the property detained or converted, is less than fifty dollars.

¶43. 4. The court erred in quashing the proceedings, because i’t does not appear there was anything disclosed in the warrant, that this suit was instituted for a cause of action not within the jurisdiction of the justice. It is true, the first count in the statement is in detinue; but this-did not warrant'the course pursued. The court could have required the plaintiff to file a proper statement of his cause of action; or the defendant could have demurred to that which was filed, and thus have prevented any question as to its sufficiency, or as to the jurisdiction of the justice to entertain the suit.

¶5The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded foi farther proceedings.

/1/ala/297 · .json · Public domain