CASES CITED. Allen v. Nichols... Babcock v. Hawkins...... Bigelow v. Steanes....... Brackett v. State.. Bridge v. Ford.. Bodenhamer v. Bodenhamer... 208 Harris v. Hoopner. .... 197 Bunn v. Thomas.. Burke v. Barnard.... Calhoun v. Webster........... 291 Cheadle v. Riddle....................... Com. v. Berry..... Commonwealth v. Cluley................ 388 Kinney v. Heald............... Hochlander v. Hochlander.... 291 291 208 181 Elmore v. Grimes.......90, 92, 219 Murray's Case..... CASES DETERMINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, JANUARY TERM, 1880. GARLAND ET AL., Plaintiffs in Error, v. BARTELS BROTHERS, Defendants in Error. January 20, 1880. APPEAL. (1) Description of parties: Replevin, judgment against sureties on replevin bond: Reformation of judgment upon appeal. APPEAL FROM JUSTICE. (2) District court governed by what rules: Juris dictional amount. KEPLEVIN. (3) Value of property and damages for detention most both be assessed. 1. William Garland commenced an action of replevin before a justice of the peace against Julius Bartels and Gus Bartels as Bartels Brothers. He gave the sheriff a bond with B. H. Hopper and J. H. Hopper as sureties, and 900 ties were replevied of defendants. Julius Bartels appeared and a trial was had before the justice of the peace. It resulted in a verdict by the jury and an assessment of costs by the justice "against Julius Bartels," who appealed to the district court. In the record of that court Bartels Brothers are stated to be "appellants." Neither Garland, nor his sureties, appeared in the district court to contest the appeal, and, upon default, a jury was impanelled to ascertain the damages sustained by Bartels. It assessed them at $270, for which sum, and $46 costs, the district court rendered judgment in favor of "appellants," and against the plaintiff and his sureties. Held, That the parties ought to have been described on appeal to the district court by the same name as in the action commenced originally before the justice of the peace. That in entitling the cause, rendering judgment or otherwise proceeding upon the appeal in the district court, it was irregular to describe the defendants merely by Garland et al. v. Bartels Brothers. the firm name of Bartels Brothers, but that the judgment ought not to be disturbed for this irregularity, since it in nowise affected plaintiff, and that the judgment of the district court against the sureties was invalid for want of jurisdiction, they not appearing and never having been summoned; but that if there were no other irregularities, the supreme court might reform the judgment so as to obviate this error. 2. In the trial and determination of causes in the district court upon appeals from judgments rendered by justices of the peace the district court must be governed by the same rules that are prescribed by law for the government of courts of justices of the peace in like causes. The law provides that no justice of the peace shall have jurisdiction over a debt or damages in an amount exceeding $100, and the verdict and judgment being for more than double ($270 + $46) this sum, they are erroneous. 3. In any action of replevin brought before a justice of the peace where the plaintiff fails to prosecute his suit to final judgment, a jury must be impanelled, and sworn to inquire and assess the value of the property replevied, together with the damages for the detention of the same, and the justice shall render judgment in favor of the defendant for such value and damages as assessed. Therefore, where the jury was sworn to assess damages only, the oath, as administered, did not include the assessment of the value of the property replevied, and the judgment was rendered for damages only, and not for the value of the property replevied. Such verdict and judgment were held erroneous. The value and damages should be stated separately, both in the verdict and judgment. Error to the District Court, Colfax county. William Garland, one of the plaintiffs in error, brought suit in replevin before E. F. Lancaster, justice of the peace in and for Colfax county, to recover certain property, a trial by jury was had and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants in error under the name of Bartels Brothers took an appeal to the district court for Colfax county, and on the 25th day of August, A. D. 1879, obtained judgment in said district court upon default of an appearance by said plaintiff Garland. Damages were assessed for said defendants in the sum of $270, and judgment entered in favor of defendants for that sum against said William Garland and B. H. Hopper and J. P. Hopper, the plaintiffs in error, the last two as sureties on the replevin bond of said Garland. |
