Hobbs Auto Co. v. Jones

Counsel

F.K. Ethridge, for appellant. The original account shows that the amount involved exceeded the jurisdiction of the justice court. In this account, the appellee claims two hundred dollars principal and eight dollars and eighty-eight cents interest, on difference of price in the two autos. This would have been all right, and within the jurisdiction of the justice court, but the appellee goes further; he gives credit for the seventeen dollars and seventy-four cents repair bill, and then adds same on again without stating what he was claiming for. Appellant admits he paid Hobbs the seventeen dollars and seventy-five cents he claims after suit was brought, and which he seeks to recover in the suit by rebating the original amount. The sums sought to be recovered for in the account as seen was on a two hundred dollar contract, seventeen dollars and seventy-four cents, money had and received, and eight dollars and eighty-eight cents interest, or a total of two hundred twenty-six dollars and sixty-three cents. But the appellee attempted by juggling figures to cover both items and fraudulently reduce his claim, in order to give the justice court jurisdiction. See Adams v. U.S. Fidelity Co., 94 Miss. 433 , 49 So. 779; Vance v. State, 93 So. 881; Parks v. Granger, 96 Miss. 503 , 51 So. 779; Martin v. Hardin, 52 Miss. 694 ; Fenn v. Harrington, 54 Miss. 733 . In Betts v. Falgo, 88 So. 636 and 637, this court said: "The jurisdiction of the justice court is fixed by section 2723 (section 2222, Hemingway's Code) . . ." It is perfectly manifest in this case that there was a purposely made reduction of the amount demanded for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction. The account shows, which is the pleadings of the plaintiff, two items which added together amount to two hundred twenty-six dollars, which even with the fraudulent credit amount to two hundred eight dollars and eighty-eight cents. The plaintiff simply sought by reduction and fraud to confer jurisdiction on the justice court. We respectfully submit that on the above error this cause should be reversed and dismissed. W.M. Everett and V.W. Gilbert, for appellee. We know of no argument that can be made. The seventeen dollars and seventy-five cents credit was a legitimate credit on the account sued on in the justice of the peace court, and being a legitimate credit, nothing that could happen in the appellate court could affect the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. Merely because Jones, under the exigencies of the case was forced to pay it after the appeal, only clinches the fact that he owed it, and owing it, it was his duty to give credit for it in the suit he filed. The only fraud involved was the extortion of the seventeen dollars and seventy-five cents from Jones, when Hobbs owed Jones the amount of the judgment when he forced the payment. Since the justice of the peace had jurisdiction any additional demand made in the circuit court could not affect the rights of the parties. Clearly the circuit court could have rendered judgment for the one hundred ninety-one dollars and thirteen cents, plus the seventeen dollars and seventy-five cents, since the additional demand originated while the case was pending in that court; but that is a moot question since the jury returned a verdict for one hundred ninety-one dollars and fifteen cents, for which amount judgment was rendered, from which this appeal is prosecuted. This disposes of the only matter argued by appellant, and since the authorities cited have no application to the case shown by this record we do not review them.