Wimer v. Brotherton
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of St. Louis-county. The main question that arises in this case is, had the justice jurisdiction on this bond ? We contend not. And did the court of common pleas err in refusing to dismiss for want of original jurisdiction? We contend it did.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of St. Louis-county. The main question that arises in this case is, had the justice jurisdiction on this bond ? We contend not. And did the court of common pleas err in refusing to dismiss for want of original jurisdiction? We contend it did. See session acts of 1840-1, creating the court; R. C. page 430, section 1; R. C. page 431, sec. 8; R. C. page 348. 1. The appellee contends that the case is clearly within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. See article 1, sec. 2 and 3 of Statutes of Missouri, establishing justices’ courts, and regulating…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Scott, Judge.
The only question involved in this case is, whether an action can be maintained in a justice’s court on a prison bounds bond, in the penalty of one hundred and forty dollars and ninety-six cents. It is not contended that the bond *265in this case is such a one as is contemplated by the 3d tion, 1st article of the act concerning justices’ courts. section permits an action to be brought in a justice’s court on a bond or note for the payment of any sum of money not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars. In an action' on this bond breaches must be assigned in the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Henoch v. ChaneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- St. Louis ex rel. v. Yeatman v. FoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851