¶2In so doing, however, we desire, without reflection, to set forth the reasons of the Court of Appeals for its original holdings.
¶3The Act creating the Court of Common Pleas, in which this cause arose, provides; "but the Court shall not have jurisdiction in such cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $300.00."
¶4This Court has already held in Davis v. Jerrell, 25 Ala. App. 524,149 So. 720, that the Court of Common Claims of Jefferson County, Alabama, was without jurisdiction to allow amendment of complaint so as to reduce the amount claimed where demand for judgment in the complaint exceeded the jurisdictional amount. The above cited case was recognized as being the law by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Broyles v. Loveman, Joseph Loeb,229 Ala. 292, 156 So. 843.
¶5It is generally held by a large number of courts of last resort that, where a plaintiff in his complaint demands a sum beyond the jurisdiction of court, no jurisdiction exists, and the case cannot be brought within the jurisdiction by reason of the fact that the sum actually due has been reduced by payments or credits to an amount within the jurisdiction, by a waiver on the part of plaintiff as a part of his demand.
¶6The foregoing is held to be the law in Louisiana, Miss., N.Y., N.C., Pa., Texas, Ver., Wis., England and Ga. A list of the cases hereinabove cited may be found in 15 C.J. 777, Note 36.
¶7Of course, the foregoing would not apply, unless the question was raised by appropriate pleading. Beginning with the case of Baird v. Nichols, 2 Port. 186, the Supreme Court of this State held: "The balance of an account for services rendered, reduced below fifty dollars, by credits, could be recovered by warrant from a Justice of the Peace."
¶8In Davis v. Bedsole, 69 Ala. 362, the Court said: "We can not see that the case is varied by the fact that the attachment before the justice was sued out after the commencement of this action, and could have been abated for this reason at the option of the defendant. It is a sufficient answer to this view, that the defendant did not elect to interpose such a plea, so far as the record shows, and the plaintiff did elect to prosecute his suit to judgment in a forum of his own choosing."
¶9In the case of Wharton v. King, 69 Ala. 365, the claim was for less than $100 and within the jurisdiction of the Justice Court; and hence, that case is not at all in point.
¶10In the case of Webb Stagg v. McPherson Co., 142 Ala. 540,38 So. 1009, while, the affidavit in attachment averred that the defendant was justly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $108.80, the *585 complaint originally claimed $100 and the amendment to the affidavit and bond was allowed at the time of trial.
¶11In the case of Central of Georgia R. R. Co. v. Williams,163 Ala. 119, 50 So. 328, the complaint originally was for $100, and such amendments as were made were in the Circuit Court on appeal from the Justice Court.
¶12None of the cases above cited were in conflict with the general rule above stated. However, as we said in the beginning, the decisions of the Supreme Court are controlling, and the judgment in this case must be reversed and the cause must be remanded.
¶13Reversed and remanded.