TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mitchell v. Kennedy

ALEXANDER MITCHELL, in Error v. DANIEL KENNEDY, in Error

Mitchell v. Kennedy, 1 Wis. 511 (1853)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1853
Judges
Whitoít
Citations
1 Wis. 511
Headnotes
An appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, is a strict statutory right, and -when not provided by statute, it does not exist. No appeal lies from a judgment of a justice of the peace, exceeding fifteen dollars, when no issue of fact or of law has been joined between the parties. "When an appeal from the judgment of a justice exceeding fifteen dollars, no issue having been joined, is taken, it confers no jurisdiction upon the appellate court. Where there is a total want of jurisdiction, and an appeal is dismissed for that cause, no judgment for costs can be rendered. Where an appeal is dismissed for total want of jurisdiction, and judgment for costs rendered, the judgment, so far as it relates to costs will be reversed, but affirmed as to the residue.
Summary
ERROR to Milwaukee county court. The defendant in error commenced a suit against Alexander Mitchell, the plaintiff in error, before a justice of the peace, by summons, returnable the 6th day of July, A. D. 1852. On the return day the plaintiff below appeared. The defendant did not appear, but made default. The plaintiff filed his bill of particulars, declared for work and labor, for damages $100. Witnesses were sworn and examined, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff below, for $19.40 damages and $3.89 costs. The same day Mitchell took an appeal, and filed his bond in the usual form. The transcript and papers having been returned to the County Court, at the next succeeding term thereof, the plaintiff below, by H. L. Palmer, his attorney, died motion to dismiss said appeal for the reason that the County Court had no jurisdiction therein ; which motion was sustained, and the appeal dismissed? for the reason, that the amount of the judgment exceeded |15.00, and the defendant below did not appear and plead, and no‘issue was joined in the case before the justice. And the court gave judgment against the defendant below for costs, $16.86.

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

Opinion of the Court — Whitoít

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

Py the Court, Whitoít, C. J.

We think this case was properly dismissed, by the court below for want of jurisdiction. The statute regulating ■ appeals from justices of the peace, (Pen. Stat. Chap. 88, § 226-227,) makes no provision for an appeal in cases of this kind, and as an appeal is strictly a statutory right, we do not see how the right can exist, except as the statute provides.

We are, however, of opinion, that the judgment of the County Court, so far as it gave costs to the defendant in error, is^erroneous. It is contended that the statute authorizes the court to give costs in all cases where an appeal is dismissed, although the reason for the dismissal is a want of jurisdiction in the appellate court. But upon a consideration of the statute, we have arrived at a different conclusion ; and, as there was a total want of jurisdiction, in the County Court, so much of the judgment as gives costs to the defendant in error must be reversed. It follows, from the view we have taken of the matter, that so much of the judgment of the County Court, as dismissed the ap *513 peal, is affirmed, and so muclu’of the judgment as awarded costs to the defendant in error is reversed. (See case of Jordan vs. Dennis, 7 Met R. 590,) and the eases there cited.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1856–1857: 11860–1861: 11864–1865: 11868–1869: 11876–1877: 11882–1883: 11904–1905: 11906–1907: 21914–1915: 11920–1921: 12004–2005: 12022–2023: 118562026peak 1906 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stahl v. Board of Supervisors187 Iowa 1342 (1920)
  2. Dane County v. McGrew2005 WI 130, 699 N.W.2d 890
  3. State ex rel. Milwaukee Medical College v. Chittenden107 N.W. 500 (Wis. 1906)
  4. Felt v. Felt19 Wis. 193 (1865)
  5. State v. Chacon19 N.M. 456 (1914)
  6. Paine v. Chase14 Wis. 653 (1861)

Most recent

  1. Jeffrey Becker v. Dane County2022 WI 63
  2. Dane County v. McGrew2005 WI 130, 699 N.W.2d 890
  3. Stahl v. Board of Supervisors187 Iowa 1342 (1920)
  4. State v. Chacon19 N.M. 456 (1914)
  5. State ex rel. Milwaukee Medical College v. Chittenden107 N.W. 500 (Wis. 1906)
  6. Notley v. Brown17 Haw. 393 (1906) · Concurrence

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