Mays v. Dooley

59 Ind. 287
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 15, 1877·Published·Cited by 18 cases

Opinion

Niblack, J.

— Dooley, the appellee, sued Mays, the appellant, before a justice of the peace, on a demand for one hundred and twenty dollars.

Before the trial, an amended complaint was filed, in four paragraphs.

The first paragraph set up a claim for eighty dollars.

The second paragraph, in a somewhat different form, ¡also set up a claim for the same amount.

The third paragraph stated facts on which judgment was demanded for one hundred dollars.

The fourth paragraph alleged, that there was due the plaintiff, on a different .state of facts, the sum of one hun[288] dred and twenty dollars, for which judgment was also demanded.

There was a finding and a judgment for the defendant before the justice.

The plaintiff appealed to the court below, where a demurrer was sustained to the first three paragraphs of the complaint, as amended, and where, on a trial on the fourth paragraph, a verdict was returned and a judgment rendered in his favor

One of the errors assigned here raises the question of the jurisdiction of the circuit court to try and determine the cause on the appeal.

The aggregate sum of money claimed to be due by the several paragraphs of the complaint considerably exceeded two hundred dollars, the limit of the justice’s jurisdiction in such cases as the one at bar; and there was ho conclusion to the complaint limiting the gross sum for which judgment was demanded to an amount within the jurisdiction of the justice.

After the filing of the amended complaint, the justice had no further jurisdiction of the cause, and all the subsequent proceedings before him were a nullity. Swift v. Woods, 5 Blackf. 97; Wetherill v. The Inhabitants, etc., 5 Blackf. 357; Culley v. Laybrook, 8 Ind. 285; Guard v. Circle, 16 Ind. 401.

The justice being without jurisdiction, the circuit court acquired no jurisdiction by the appeal. Pritchard v. Bartholomew, 45 Ind. 219.

The circuit court was without jurisdiction to acton the demurrer to the complaint, and hence the sustaining of the demurrer to three of the paragraphs of the complaint did not in any manner bring the cause within its jurisdiction '

The judgment is reversed, at the costs of the appellee, and the cause remanded, with instructions to the court below to dismiss the action.

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

Mays v. Dooley, 59 Ind. 287 (Ind. 1877).

59 Ind. 287 (Mays v. Dooley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gill v. State
111 N.E.2d 275 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1953)
State v. Schelton
186 N.E. 772 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1933)
Jay v. O'Donnell
98 N.E. 349 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1912)
Estes v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad
113 P. 1005 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1910)
Prather v. Brandon
88 N.E. 700 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1909)
Steinmetz v. G. H. Hammond Co.
78 N.E. 628 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1906)
Deane v. Robinson
73 N.E. 169 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1905)
Everett Piano Co. v. Bash
68 N.E. 329 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1903)
Dugdale v. Doney
62 N.E. 643 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)
Wilcox v. Bryant
59 N.E. 1049 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1901)
Flanagan v. Reitemier
59 N.E. 389 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1901)
Bernhamer v. Hoffman
54 N.E. 132 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1899)
Myers v. Gibson
53 N.E. 646 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1899)
Elgin v. Mathis
36 N.E. 650 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1894)
Baldwin v. Runyan
35 N.E. 569 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
Goodwine v. Barnett
28 N.E. 115 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1891)
Nace v. State
19 N.E. 729 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
State ex rel. Conn v. Forry
64 Ind. 260 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1878)