TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cole v. Hayes

Alfred Cole v. William C. Hayes

Cole v. Hayes, 7 A. 391 (Me. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 31, 1886
Judges
Emery, Haskell, Libbey, Peters, Virgin, Walton
Citations
7 A. 39178 Me. 5391886 Me. LEXIS 111
Headnotes
Jurisdiction. Ad damnum. Trial justices. R. 3., c. 83, § 8. The Supreme Judicial Court lias jurisdiction in an action of assumpsit, when the ad damnum is more than twenty dollars, though the cause of action set out in the declaration is a promissory note for twelve dollars. The ad, damnum in the writ is the “debt or damages demanded,” within the moaning' of R. S., c, 83, § 3, which gives trial justices exclusive jurisdiction “ when the debt or damages demanded do not exceed twenty dollars.”
Summary
ON EXCEPTIONS. Assumpsit on a promissory note dated May 14, 1883, for the sum of twelve dollars, payable in six months, with interest annually. The writ was dated March 23, 1886. The plaintiff resided in Oxford county, and the defendant in Piscataquis county. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the exceptions were to the ruling of the court in overruling that motion. cited: Merrill v. Ourtis, 57 Maine, 152; 61 Maine, 22; 6 Maine, 325 ; 8 Allen, 337 ; 3 Allen, 532; 14 Gray, 521 ; 8 Gray, 373; 12 Gray, 139; 2 Greenl. Ev. 260; 16 Mass. 74; 10 Mass. 251; 11 Maine, 149 ; 28 Maine, 207 ; 47 Maine, 460. Trial justices have exclusive jurisdiction where the debt or damages are less than twenty dollars. R. S., c. 83, § 3. In actions of tort the ad damnum might determine the question prima facie, as that would, or might be the only means of determining the amount of damages claimed, the damages being unliquidated, but in actions of assumpsit, on a contract, the declaration must determine the amount claimed, and that would be the amount of the debt or damage demanded. In Ridlon v. Emery, 6 Greenl. 261, the court held that the common pleas court had jurisdiction where property was of less value than twenty dollars, because the statute did not give exclusive jurisdiction to justices of the peace, but only concurrent jurisdiction. In Hapgood v. Doherty, 8 Gray, 373, the court held that the one hundred dollar ad damnum was the debt or damage demanded, but it was a case where the account annnexed was one hundred and twenty-three dollar’s. In the cases in the Mass. Reports, where the court has held that the debt or damage demanded means the ad damnum, the decisions are based upon a different statute from ours.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Libbey

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Libbey, J.

By R. S., c. 83, § 3, trial jnstices "have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all civil actions, . . . when

the debt or damages demanded do not exceed twenty dollars,” except certain cases therein specified.

In this case the note declared on is for twelve dollars and interest. The ad damnum is for more than twenty dollars. It *541 is claimed by the defendant that the " debt or damages demanded” is to be determined by computing the amount due on the note when the action was commenced, and not by the ad damnum. We think this is not the law. It appears to be well settled that in all actions sounding in damages as assumpsit and tort, the jurisdiction depends upon the ad damnum, which is the amount of damages demanded. Estes v. White, 61 Maine, 22; Hapgood v. Doherty, 8 Gray, 373 ; Bank v. Pearson, 14 Gray, 521 .

In such case, it can not be judicially determined that the debt or damages which the plaintiff is entitled to recover, are less than the ad damnum, until judgment is rendered; and then, if it is for a sum less than twenty dollars, it does not affect the jurisdiction. Ladd v. Kimball, 12 Gray, 139 .

Exceptions overruled.

Peters, C. J., Walton, Virgin, Emery and Haskell, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1955: 219552026peak 1955 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gable v. the Pathfinder Irrigation District68 N.W.2d 500 (Neb. 1955)
  2. Kroeger v. Safranek72 N.W.2d 831 (Neb. 1955)

Most recent

  1. Kroeger v. Safranek72 N.W.2d 831 (Neb. 1955)
  2. Gable v. the Pathfinder Irrigation District68 N.W.2d 500 (Neb. 1955)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list