Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

66 Ark. 346

Thompson v. Willard

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 15, 1899

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1899-04-15

Rufus D. Hearn, Judge. The justice of the peace had no jurisdiction, since the amount in controversy was over $100. Sand. & H. Dig. § 4317, note 2. For meaning of phrase “all matters of damage to personal property,” as used in the statute, see 41 Ark. 478; 42 Ark. 210; 47 Ark. 59; 48 Ark. 293. The total amount claimed or involved is the test. 7 Ark. 258; 13 Ark. 40; 44 Ark. 100; 45 Ark. 346; 47 Ark. 59; 48 Ark. 293; 62 Ark.209.

Relies on Trammell v. Town of Russellville · Little Rock, Mississippi River & Texas Ry. v. Manees · St. L., I. M. & S. Railway v. Heath

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1931

8 state decisions

4018991900191019201930decided

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 →

Battle, J.

¶1This action was instituted by Willard against Thompson, before a justice of the peace, to recover damages for the unlawful detention and conversion of a mare, the property of the plaintiff. After alleging in his complaint that the mare belonged to him, and was sold by Thompson without his consent, and without any order of court or authority of law, he said, “I therefore ask judgment against the said Floyd Thompson for seventy-five dollars for the conversion of said mare, and the sum of thirty dollars for damages for the detention of said mare.” Did the justice of the peace have jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this action!

¶2The action is for a tort, the unlawful conversion of a mare. The amount of damage claimed is seventy-five dollars for the conversion, and thirty dollars for the unlawful detention, making one hundred and five dollars, the total amount demanded. Under the constitution of this state (art. 7, § 40), justices of the peace have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts “in all matters of damage to personal property when the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of one hundred dollars;” that is to say, “in all matters of damage resulting from the loss, conversion, or destruction of personal property, as well as from injury to it, when the amount in controversy does not exceed one hundred dollars.” St. L., I. M. & So. Ry. Co. v. Briggs, 47 Ark. 59; Same v. Heath, 41 Ark. 476. The amount in controversy is the sum demanded. Little Rock, Mississippi River & Texas Railway v. Manees, 44 Ark. 100. The amount demanded in this case is one hundred and five dollars. Consequently, the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction. The fact that any part of the amount demanded cannot be recovered will not give the justice of the peace jurisdiction, because he is without jurisdiction to so determine. Trammell v. Russellville, 34 Ark. 105.

¶3The justice of the peace having no jurisdiction, the circuit court acquired none by appeal.

¶4The judgment of the circuit court is, therefore, reversed, and the action is dismissed.

/66/ark/346 · .json · Public domain