SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
EDWARD MAXEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Seaboard Air Line Railway appealed a judgment for cattle damages awarded by the Circuit Court of Marion County. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction because the total demand, including statutory double damages and attorney fees, did not exceed $100, placing the case within the exclusive jurisdiction of justices of the peace.
The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction. When a statute requires judgment for double damages, those double damages constitute the demand for jurisdictional purposes. Since the demand was for double the value of animals worth fifty dollars (totaling $100) and attorney fees are costs that do not affect jurisdiction, the entire demand did not exceed $100 and was cognizable only by justices of the peace.
“Judicial power to enter a judgment extends only to subjects over which the court or judge has jurisdiction; and a judgment entered in a judicial proceeding as to a subject not within the judicial power of the court or judge is a nullity.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that lack of jurisdiction renders a judgment void.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaxey brought suit against Seaboard Air Line Railway for cattle killed by the railway company, valued at fifty dollars. Under statute, the railway was…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ad Damnum Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
Maxey brought an action in the Circuit Court for Marion County to recover damages for cattle killed by the railway company “all of the value of Fifty dollars,” and it is alleged that under the statute the defendant “is liable to plaintiff for double the. value of said animals;” and plaintiff being represented by counsel claims under the statute a reasonable attorney fee of fifty dollars; “wherefore plaintiff claims two hundred dollars damages.” Judgment was rendered for the plain tiff in the “sum of one hundred ($100.00) dollars, damages, and the further sum of $-costs including fifty dollars attorney fee.” The defendant took writ of error. The constitution ordains that “the Circuit Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in equity, also in all cases at law, not cognizable by inferior courts.” “The justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction in cases at law in which the demand or value of the property involved does not exceed $100.00.” Sec. 11 Art. V. and Sec. 22 of Art. V. as amended.
Judicial power to enter a judgment extends only to subjects over which the court or judge has jurisdiction; and a judgment entered in a judicial proceeding as to a subject not within the judicial power of the court or judge is a nullity.
Costs properly incurred are an incident to the judicial proceeding and are no part of the damages claimed or demand or penalty being adjudicated; consequently costs do not affect the jurisdiction of the court.
Where a statute requires a judgment to be entered for double the damages found to be due, the double damages constitute the demand or damages claimed. .
Sections 2871-2875 of the General Statutes provides that under certain conditions the railroad company shall be liable for double the value of the live stock killed, and that under certain conditions the court shall render judgment “for double the damage found to be due the plaintiff --and also render judgment---for all costs of the said suit, which costs shall include a reasonable attorney’s fee, said fee to be determined by the court.” In such cases the double damages actually and in good faith stated in the declaration constitute the demand or damages claimed for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the court. The statute makes the attorney fee a part of the costs, and. costs do not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Sutton, 54 Fla. 247, 44 South. Rep. 946; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Ray, 52 Fla. 634, 42 South. Rep. 714.
The amount of damages stated in the ad damnum clause of the declaration does not determine the jurisdiction of the court, when the real “demand or value of the property involved” otherwise clearly appears, and the ad damnum is in excess of the real demand. A different statute was considered in the case of Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v, Seymour, 44 Fla. 557, 33 South. Rep. 424.
As the demand was for double the value of animals valued as a whole at fifty dollars, the entire demand “does not exceed $100.00,” and is therefore “cognizable by inferior courts,” viz. justices of the peace, consequently the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction.
The judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur. Taylor, J., absent on account of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. Royal Ins. Co. v. Burton Barrs, 87 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1924)…lies, and does not authorize attorney fees to be recovered as a part of the costs in the case, as in Hines v. Taylor, 79 Fla. 218, 84 South. Rep. 381; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Sutton, 54 Fla. 247, 44 South. Rep. 946; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Maxey, 64 Fla. 487, 60 South. Rep. 353; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 164, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 7; Eagle Gold Mine Co. v. Dryarly, 28 Colo. 262, 65 Pac. Rep. 52; Swofford v. Cornucopia Mines of Oregon, 140 Fed. Rep. 957,…
-
A. Mortellaro & Co. v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 91 Fla. 230 (Fla. 1926)…clause of a declaration does not determine the jurisdiction of tbe court when it appears that the real demand or value of tbe property involved otherwise clearly appears and the ad damnum is in' excess of the real demand. S. A. L. Ry. Co. v. Maxie, 64 Fla. 487, 60 So. 353; Sumner Lumber Co. v. Mills, 64 Fla. 513, 60 So. 757; Director General v. Wilford, 81 Fla. 430, 88 So. 256. The judgment of the court below will be reversed and the cause remanded. Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and…
-
Waldemar Knudsen v. Green, 116 Fla. 47 (Fla. 1934)…tellaro & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 91 Fla. 230, 107 Sou. Rep. 528; Hutchinson v. Courtney, 86 Fla. 556, 98 Sou. Rep. 582. Compare: Director General of Railroads v. Wilford, 81 Fla. 430, 88 Sou. Rep. 256; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Maxey, 64 Fla. 487, 60 Sou. Rep. 353. It was the theory of plaintiff’s declaration as filed in the Circuit Court, that where a servant gives up a position which he has in order to enter into the service of a master under a contract of employment, although for an inde…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Ray, 52 Fla. 634 (Fla. 1906)
- The Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Sutton, 54 Fla. 247 (Fla. 1907)
- The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Seymour, 44 Fla. 557 (Fla. 1902)