Skip to content

McGray v. Wheeler

Laban M. McGray v. John Wheeler

McGray v. Wheeler, 18 Vt. 502 (1846)

Court: Supreme Court of Vermont · State Highest Courts
Decided: March 15, 1846
Judges: Williams
Citations: 18 Vt. 502

Cited by 2

Headnotes

Where an action is brought originally to the county court for an injury to property of uncertain value, and the value of the property, as averred in the declaration, and the ad damnum each exceed one hundred dollars, and, on trial, all the plaintiff’s witnesses estimate the value of the property at less than one hundred dollars, a motion by the defendant to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction is addressed to the discretion of the county court, and the decision of the court upon that question cannot be revised, upon exceptions, by the supreme court.

Summary

Trespass on the Case for an injury to the plaintiff’s mare, which caused her death. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, Redfield, J., presiding. On trial the plaintiff gave evidence, tending to prove that the injury to the mare, for which the defendant was liable, occasioned the death of the mare, but did not give evidence of any other damage being thereby occasioned. The plaintiff’s witnesses estimated the value of the mare at from sixty five dollars to eighty dollars, no one of his witnesses estimating her value at over eighty dollars. The defendant moved the court to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction, — the action having been originally brought to the county court; but the court refused to dismiss the action, not being satisfied, that the plaintiff might not have expected, at the time he commenced the action, to recover more than one hundred dollars. The value of the mare was averred in the declaration to be one hundred and twenty five dollars, and the ad damnum, was put at two hundred dollars. Verdict for plaintiff. Exceptions by defendant.

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

Opinion of the Court — Williams

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

*503 The opinion of the court was delivered by Williams, Ch. J.

By the amount of damages claimed and by the value of the property, as stated in the declaration, this case was apparently within the jurisdiction of the county court. But when a party fraudulently endeavors to give jurisdiction to the county court, by claiming more than he can have any expectation of recovering, the court may, in their discretion, dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction. The principle, on which the court proceed in such cases, was fully stated in the case of Cooley v. Aiken, 15 Vt. 322 . The county court did not think proper to dismiss the cause on the motion of the defendant, and that decision cannot be reviewed here.

The case of Putney v. Bellows, 8 Vt. 272 , has been relied on by the defendant; but that case differed wholly from this. Where a suit is brought to recover a specific sum, as a note, or a penalty, the jurisdiction of the county court, or of a justice, is apparent from inspection. If a plaintiff combines several counts on demands, or penalties, each of which is within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, but collectively within the jurisdiction of the county court, and gives no evidence whatever on some of the counts, it is evident the counts were added to give jurisdiction. In such a case the court are bound to dismiss, as their jurisdiction depends entirely on the fact, whether the plaintiff had so many distinct claims, as, added together, came within the jurisdiction of the county court. On this ground Putney v. Bellotas was decided; but it was distinctly said, in that case, that, if the party gave any evidence on all the counts, the jurisdiction should not be affected, because he failed in the proof.

The subject, from the decisions had, and from its very nature, must rest in the discretion of the county court; and we cannot control their discretion and exercise our own, when the trial is had before them.

The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 2 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts2

Relies on it most ⓘ

Joyal v. Barney20 Vt. 154 (1848)
Clark v. Crosby37 Vt. 188 (1864)

Most recent

Clark v. Crosby37 Vt. 188 (1864)
Joyal v. Barney20 Vt. 154 (1848)

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 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Town of Putney v. Bellows, 8 Vt. 272 (1836)	2
	Cooley v. Aiken, 15 Vt. 322 (1843)	2