Johnson v. . Williams

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Johnson v. . Williams

20 S.E. 178, 115 N.C. 33

DecidedSeptember 5, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 20 S.E. 178 (Johnson v. . Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. . Williams, 20 S.E. 178, 115 N.C. 33 (N.C. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Avery, J.:

The two actions were brought before the Justice of the Peace, not to enforce a contract by recovering judgment for an ascertained amount of indebtedness, but for the recovery of the possession of distinct articles of property, to-wit, corn, of the value of $35, made upon certain land, in the first, and cotton and fodder raised thereon, of the value of $15,. in the second action. The Court of the Justice unquestionably had jurisdiction, under the principle laid down in Bell v. Howerton, 111 N. C., 69. This is not one of the cases where an attempt has been made to give jurisdiction by “ splitting up ” the items of indebtedness due on a single contract, so as to bring the amount demanded in each action within the constitutional limit. The ruling of the Court below sustaining the conclusion of the Referee that the Magistrate’s Court had no jurisdiction is, therefore, reversed, and the cause will stand for hearing upon the report of the Referee. Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Avery, J.:

The two actions were brought before the Justice of the Peace, not to enforce a contract by recovering judgment for an ascertained amount of indebtedness, but for the recovery of the possession of distinct articles of property, to-wit, corn, of the value of $35, made upon certain land, in the first, and cotton and fodder raised thereon, of the value of $15,. in the second action. The Court of the Justice unquestionably had jurisdiction, under the principle laid down in Bell v. Howerton, 111 N. C., 69. This is not one of the cases where an attempt has been made to give jurisdiction by “ splitting up ” the items of indebtedness due on a single contract, so as to bring the amount demanded in each action within the constitutional limit. The ruling of the Court below sustaining the conclusion of the Referee that the Magistrate’s Court had no jurisdiction is, therefore, reversed, and the cause will stand for hearing upon the report of the Referee. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 S.E. 178, 115 N.C. 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-williams-nc-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack