James vs. Smith & Brother

Supreme Court of Georgia1879-02

62 Ga. 345

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment of the superior court is reversed with directions that it dismiss the certiorari and affirm the judgment of the justice court, as the justice court possessed jurisdiction over the action both as a claim for trover involving personal property damages under one hundred dollars and as an alternative action for money had and received.

Smith & Brother sued James in justice court for the value of cotton that James had seized and sold. The justice court entered judgment for the plaintiffs. James moved to dismiss, arguing the case constituted an action of trover, which was outside the justice court's jurisdiction. The superior court agreed that trover fell outside the justice court's authority but declined to enter final judgment, instead remanding the case with instructions that it be reframed as an action for money had and received.

The state's highest court addressed whether the superior court should have made a final determination and, if so, what that determination should have been. The court concluded that the case properly fit within the justice court's jurisdiction in two respects. First, trover for damages to personal property valued under one hundred dollars fell within the justice court's jurisdictional grant. Second, even assuming trover would be improper, a plaintiff may elect to waive the tort and sue instead for money had and received when personal property has been converted into money—which was precisely the circumstance here. Accordingly, the justice court had acted correctly in both respects.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether justice court had jurisdiction over a trover action involving personal property valued under one hundred dollars
Whether a plaintiff may waive the tort and sue for money had and received instead of trover when converted property has been reduced to money
Whether the superior court erred in failing to enter final judgment when the law and facts were sufficiently developed

Procedural posture

The case was brought by writ of certiorari to the superior court challenging the justice court's refusal to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the state's highest court reviewed the superior court's decision to sustain the certiorari but remand rather than enter final judgment.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Jackson, Justice.

Smith & Brother sued John W. James on an account in the justice court for fifty-two and a half dollars, the value of a bale of cotton which James had converted and sold. The justice court gave judgment for plaintiffs on proof that the cotton had been seized and sold by the defendant, that it was the plaintiffs’ cotton, and was worth the sum sued for. The defendant moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that the facts made it an action of trover, and that the justice court had no jurisdiction of cases of trover. The jus tice of the peace refused to dismiss; the case was taken by writ of certiorari to the superior court, and that court sus tained the certiorari, ruling that the justice court had no jurisdiction of trover, but refused to pass final judgment upon the case, sending it back to the justice court with the direction that it had no jurisdiction of trover, but to see if the case could be amended in such manner as to proceed for money had and received.

To the refusal of the court to pass final judgment dismissing the action in the justice court for want of jurisdiction, the defendant, J ames, excepted, on the ground that the court erred in sending the case back, and in not making a final disposition thereof. So that the questions made are, ought the superior court to have finally disposed of the case, and how ought it to have been disposed of ?

We cannot see the need of any amendment of pleadings in the justice court. The suit was for the value of “ one bale of cotton, 500 lbs., at 10-J- cents per lb., had and received to plaintiff’s use, $52.50.” So that it was an action for money had and received by defendant for plaintiffs’ use— the facts were all in, and there was nothing to show that they would be varied. ■ The law of the case upon them was quite plain, it seems to us, and needed no further trial in the justice court. Therefore, we think that the court erred in not making a final disposition of the case. Code, §4067; Dorsey vs. Black, 55 Ga., 315.

But how should it have been disposed of ? Suppose the case had been trover, did not the justice court have jurisdiction thereof, the amount or value of the cotton being under $100.00 ? The new constitution on the subject is in these words : “Justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction in all civil cases arising ex contractu, and in cases of injuries or damages to personal property when the principal sum does not exceed one hundred dollars.” Const. 1877, art. 6, sec. 7. The action of trover is an action for damages to personal property. See Guilford & Co. vs. McKinley, 61 Ga., 230. There cannot well be any greater damage to one’s personal property — a bale of cotton, for instance, as in this case — than to take it off from the owner’s possession, sell it and use the money. So far as the owner is con cerned, the defendant could not injure or damage it more if he had burnt it. The verdict in trover is for so much money, as damages, to be discharged by the delivery of the property within a time limited in the verdict.

The constitution of 1868 gave the justice court jurisdiction in all civil cases — land as well as personalty — -when the sum claimed was under one hundred dollars. The constitution of 1877 only alters its effect so far as to limit the jurisdiction ex delicto to personal property. For injuries to that, the justices have jurisdiction as before. They had it before. Gillespie vs. Chastain, 57 Ga., 218.

Moreover, if the court did have jurisdiction in trover, the rule is plain in the books everywhere that the plaintiff may waive the tort and sue for money had and received to his use wherethe property has been turned into money, as is the case at bar. See Hilliard on Contracts, vol. 1, 75; Greenleafs Ev., vol. 2, 101-120; 7 Ga., 197; 38 Ga., 207-220; 20 Ga., 426.

Therefore, the justices of the peace were right in both phases of the case to maintain their jurisdiction, and the error of the superior court was in not finally disposing of the case by dismissing the certiorari and affirming the judgment of the justice court. The judgment must therefore be reversed, with directions that the superior court dismiss the certiorari and affirm the judgment of the justices of the peace. The powers of this court are ample so to dispose of the case. Code, §§218, 4284.

Judgment reversed with directions.