R. H. Green Wholesale Co. v. Hall

Counsel

Hall Hall, of Columbia, and Lotterhos Travis and Vardaman S. Dunn, all of Jackson, for appellant. The lower court should have granted appellant's requested peremptory instructions against all three appellees, for the reason that the sale of the seed must be taken and considered as a sale to the "Rowan Hall Store," a retail establishment, and the implied warranty that the seed were true to name did not inure to the benefit of appellees, since there was no privity of contract. Pease Dwyer Co. v. Somers Planting Co., 130 Miss. 147 , 93 So. 673; D. Rosenbaum's Sons v. Davis Andrews Co., 111 Miss. 278 , 71 So. 388; Royal Feed Milling Co. v. Thorne, 142 Miss. 92 , 107 So. 282 . The circuit court was without jurisdiction to try this case, since the claim of each appellee, under their amended declaration, was less than the $200 necessary to confer jurisdiction. Sections 490 and 494, Code of 1930. Where several claimants have separate and distinct demands against a defendant or defendants, and join in a single suit to enforce them, they cannot be added together to make up the required jurisdictional amount, but each separate claim furnishes the jurisdictional test. 72 A.L.R., pages 193-224. We respectfully submit that the case at bar comes within the general rule that claims cannot be added together to make up the required jurisdictional amount where several claimants have separate and distinct demands against a defendant and join in a single suit to enforce them. Oswald v. Morris, 92 Ky. 48 , 17 S.W. 167; Miller v. Carlisle, 127 Cal. 327 , 59 P. 785 , 127 Cal. 331 , 59 P. 112; Henderson v. Carbondale Coal Coke Co., 140 U.S. 25 , 35 L.Ed. 332, 11 S.Ct. 691. Martin Farr, of Prentiss, for appellees. We do not intend to burden the court with a long list of citations on estoppel, but it seems to us that there is no element of estoppel here on appellees. There is no showing at all that there is any causal connection between the corn sold to the appellees and the same corn sold to the store, as appellant claims, as would be any basis for estoppel. It is the same corn. Appellant is only seeking to evade liability — that's all. Nobody misled this salesman. It is a known fact that merchants order things many times for farmers, that is, they are the agents for farmers and there is no law we know of that would penalize a farmer either criminally or by estoppel, etc., in so doing. We submit that the evidence shows that we do have privity of contract and that all these issues were submitted to the jury, the judgment of the court only applying the law to the issue of fact found by the jury. Winter-Loeb Grocery Co. v. Boykin, 82 So. 437 ; Grafton-Stamps Drug Co. v. Williams, 105 Miss. 296 , 62 So. 273; Lollar v. Jones, 157 So. 209 . We understand, of course, that jurisdiction may be raised anywhere and we say we properly filed the suit and that there is no error in the question of jurisdiction vel non. Judgments may be rendered for or against one or more of several plaintiffs or for or against one or more of several defendants; and in such case the verdict shall be as the right may appear among the several parties to the action and shall state separately any amount allowed to any of the parties. Section 605, Code of 1930; Hodges v. Town of Drew, 159 So. 298 ; Gillespie v. Olive Branch Bldg. Lbr. Co., 164 So. 42 ; Aven v. Singleton, 132 Miss. 256 , 96 So. 165. Court of law has inherent power to consolidate pending cases when they are between same parties, plaintiff and defendant, depend on the same, or substantially the same, facts and when thereby the interests of economy and expedition would be subserved and especially when actions might in first instance been brought in one suit. R.R. Co. v. Miss. Clinic, 152 Miss. 869 , 120 So. 187 . In Drysdale v. Canning Co., 67 Miss. 534 , our court held that a creditor may not divide a cause of action, though consisting of different items, and bring several suits. Having distinct demands against the same debtor, he may unite them in one suit, but is not compelled to do so. McLendon v. Pass, 66 Miss. 110 . Our court held in R.R. Co. v. Hitt et al., 99 Miss. 679 , 55 So. 484, that where plaintiff honestly believes and contends for a recovery of a sum above the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, the circuit court has right to entertain jurisdiction. Fenn v. Harrington, 54 Miss. 733 ; Ball v. Sledge, 82 Miss. 479 .