Henderson & Garnick v. Kennedy & Pieratt
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Coffey District Court. Kennedy & Pieeatt, as plaintiffs, brought suit in the district court against Henderson & Garnick on a promissory note made and executed by the latter. The amount claimed by plaintiffs, principal and interest, was $235.10. Defendants demurred, “ for that it appeared on the face of the petition that said district court has no jurisdiction of the subject of said action.”
Read the full summary
Error from Coffey District Court. Kennedy & Pieeatt, as plaintiffs, brought suit in the district court against Henderson & Garnick on a promissory note made and executed by the latter. The amount claimed by plaintiffs, principal and interest, was $235.10. Defendants demurred, “ for that it appeared on the face of the petition that said district court has no jurisdiction of the subject of said action.” The case was heard on this demurrer at the May Term 1871. Said demurrer was overruled; and defendants not wishing to answer, judgment ivas given in favor of Kennedy & Dieratt for the amount…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brewer, J.:
Has the district court jurisdiction of “an action for the recovery of money only,” when the amount *166claimed is between one hundred and three hundred dollars ? The district court is a court of general original jurisdiction of all matters, both civil and criminal. Ch. 28, Gen. St-at., p. 304, §1. Unless jurisdiction in any matter is elsewhere located in such manner as to exclude that court, it has jurisdiction. The mere granting of original jurisdiction in ordinary actions to other tribunals does not of itself operate as an exclusion. Both acts…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Judd v. DriverSupreme Court of Kansas · 1863
3Cited by3 opinions
- Shoemaker v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
- Miller v. BogartSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Norton v. FosterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873