508 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT [27 Ark. Dunnington et al. v. Bailey. • • [DECEMBER DUNNINGTON et . aLv. BAILEY. CIRCUIT COURTS—When no jurisdiction on aPpea/,—Where the amount, in controversy, in a suit before a justice of the peace, is above the jurisdiction of the justice, the Circuit Court can acquire none on appeal APPEAL FROM INDEPENDENCE CIRCUIT COURT. • HON. ELISHA BAXTER, Circuit Judge. . U. M. Rose and W. Byers,. for Appellants. A. H. Garland, for Appellee. GREGG, J.—The appellee, in 1869, sued Metcalf and Sey-more before a justice of the peace and recovered judgment. An execution was issued and returned, "no property found." The justice endorsed thereon, "renewed for twelve months." Sometime thereafter, the , constable seized certain cotton which was claimed by the appellant. Under Section 727 of the Civil Code of Practice, the appellant, in order to ' hold the . cotton, tendered a bond with security, which was approved by the constable and returned with the execution. The bond , did not conform , to the statute ; it was for $3000,. not given . to _tlie plaintiff in the execution but to him and Burr & Reed. There was no showing as to what the- property was valued a, or - What . portion was seized under Bailey's execution, or what under an execution in favor of Burr & Reed, which appeared also to be in the constable's hands. On the 4th of January, 1871, the appellee moved the justice of the peace for judgment on the bond, reciting that it had been executed by DunnMgton to him. The justice . sets out on his record the $3000 bond. of Dunnington and Wright to Bailey and Burr & Reed ; a jury was empanneled, and they retUrned that they found the property not subject to the execution. The justice rendered judgment that the "levy be 'am-nulled, the property restored," and that Bailey pay costs ; from which Bailey appealed to the Circuit Court, and obtained a supersedeas. The record does not . show what issues were
27 Ark.] OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 509 TERM, 1872.] Dunnington et al. v. Bailey. made up in that court, but shows that a jury 'was empan-neled to try the issues, and that they returned that they found for the appellee $74.05, with ten per cent interest on the amount, for which suni and costs judgment was rendered against Dunnington, and he moved for a new trial and in arrest of judgmet, which motions were overruled, , and he excepted and appealed to this court. The motions and bill of exceptions are verbose and lengthy. We deem it only necessary to say that the grounds, in the motion in arrest of judgment, seem to be well taken. This is not a statutory bond in the form an:d with the conditions prescribed by the Code and without deciding what was, or was not Dunnington's liability on that bond, it is not such as authorized a recovery in this form of proceeding. Watson vs. Gabb'ery, 18 . B. Mon. 664. Bailey's proceeding against Dunnington was• commenced by motion 'upon this $3000 bond, before the justice of the peace. The bond was the foundation of his complaint there, ,and it being for a sum above the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, he could not successfully prosecute such claim in that forum. If the justice of the peace had uo jurisdiction, the Circuit Court could acquire none by appeal. Collins vs. Woodruff, 9 Ark., 463; Latham . vs. Jones, 6 Ark., 372. The judgment is reversed and the Eause remanded for the appeal to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.