RICHTER JEWELRY CO., INC., A CORPORATION,
v.
MRS. CLARA HARRISON
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.
The circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the amount in controversy, based on good faith claims, did not exceed the $5,000 limit for inferior courts.
Plaintiff sued for conversion and negligent loss of a diamond ring, alleging its value at $10,000. The case was tried, resulting in a verdict for the …
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 Good Faith Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
This action was brought on five counts. The first two in trover charging conversion of a diamond ring; the third for breach of a pledge contract; and the fourth and fifth counts charged the negligent loss of the ring by bailee. Each count charged the loss of a diamond ring pledged to secure a $300.00 loan. The value of the ring was alleged to be $10,000.00 in each count. The case was tried resulting in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $3243.50. Writ of error is prosecuted to this Court.
The first question submitted to us for decision is one of jurisdiction of the circuit court over the subject matter.
The circuit court has original jurisdiction only of actions at law not cognizable by inferior courts. Section 11, Article V, Florida Constitution. The Civil Court of Record of Dade County has jurisdiction of actions at law up to $5,000.00 Chapter 11357, Acts 1925, Extra Session.
Where jurisdiction is dependent on the amount involved in the case, the question turns not upon the amount claimed or the amount actually recoverable, but the test is the amount claimed and put in controversy in good faith. See Knudsen v. Green, 116 Fla. 47, 156 So. 240, and cases there cited.
The record reveals litigation of the identical controversy between the same parties in the Civil Court of *734Record of Dade County prior to institution of this action which resulted in a non-suit. The plaintiff testified in the former action that in 1924 the list price of the ring was $2,250.00 but was purchased for $1800.00 by her husband and given to her. In the case at bar she testified that the cost of the ring was $2,250.00. By no other evidence does she prove value at more than $2,500.00. The record affords no basis for a claim of sentimental value to her.
It is our conclusion that the circuit court was without jurisdiction ahd should have dismissed the action.
There is no justification to pass on the other questions submitted. The judgment is reversed with directions to dismiss the action.
So ordered.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Ada Gannett v. William F. King et ux., 108 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…depends upon the amount involved in a case, the answer cannot rest upon the amount claimed or actually recoverable, but the question must be resolved by the amount claimed in good faith and put in controversy. Richter Jewelry Co. v. Harrison, 1941, 147 Fla. 732, 3 So. 2d 387. Regardless of what statement of damages is made in the ad damnum clause of a complaint,, such statement does not determine the jurisdiction of the court if it clearly appears that the real demand or value of the property is otherwise…
-
White v. Marine Transp. Lines, Inc., 372 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1979)…ty court is a court of limited jurisdiction, appellant maintains that jurisdiction of the court is to be determined by the sum demanded in good faith or actually put in controversy and not the amount of the recovery. Richter Jewelry Co. v. Harrison, 147 Fla. 732, 3 So. 2d 387 (1941); Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Ray, 52 Fla. 634, 42 So. 714 (1906). He asserts that the proper time to make this determination is at the time the lawsuit is instituted. If at that time the plaintiff alleges in good faith that the…
-
Anderson v. Burwell Motor Co., 73 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1954)…omplaint the compensatory damages could not be enhanced 'by punitive damages to such extent that the “amount claimed and put in controversy in good faith” was sufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction. Richter Jewelry Co., Inc., v. Harrison, 147 Fla. 732, 3 So. 2d 387, 388. The judgment is affirmed. ROBERTS, C. J., and HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Waldemar Knudsen v. Green, 116 Fla. 47 (Fla. 1934)