Mobile Light & Railroad v. George

57 So. 50, 2 Ala. App. 545, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 111
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 19, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 So. 50 (Mobile Light & Railroad v. George) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mobile Light & Railroad v. George, 57 So. 50, 2 Ala. App. 545, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 111 (Ala. Ct. App. 1911).

Opinion

de GRAFFENRIEI), J.

This suit was brought in the circuit court of Mobile County by the appellee against the appellant, and the amount sued for in his complaint was exactly $50. The appellee claimed the above sum of the appellant, because he alleged that an animal of Ms, through the negligence of the servants of the appellant, acting within the scope of their employment, was killed. There was a trial by jury, a verdict for something less than $50, and a judgment on said verdict, and this appeal is taken to reverse said judgment.

Section 143 of the Constitution provides that the circuit court, “in civil cases, other than suits for libel, slander, assaults and battery, and ejectment, shall have no original ¡jurisdiction except where the. matter or sum in controversy exceeds $50.” Section 3255 of the Code provides that the circuit court has authority “to exercise original jurisdiction of all felonies and misdemeanors; of all actions for libel, slander, assault and battery, and of ejectments, without regard to the amount [547]*547involved; and of all other suits and actions at law when the matter or sum in controversy exceeds $50.

As the appellee brought this suit in the circuit court, and as it is not a suit for libel, slander, assault and battery, or ejectment, but is a civil suit, and as the amount claimed in the complaint is exactly $50, it is evident that the circuit court had no original jurisdiction to try the case, and the judgment rendered by it against the appellant is therefore manifestly void.—McLure v. Lay, 30 Ala. 208. We have, therefore, in this case, an appeal from a void judgment, and this court has nothing therefore before it. The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Kershaw v. McKown
68 So. 559 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Ex parte Simpson
57 So. 518 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 So. 50, 2 Ala. App. 545, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mobile-light-railroad-v-george-alactapp-1911.