Skip to main content
· 3/22/1883

James v. Stokes

Citations

  • 77 Va. 225
  • 1883 Va. LEXIS 51

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction—Justices.—The law limiting the jurisdiction of justices is founded on public policy, and no manipulation of a debt can affect such jurisdiction.</p> <p>2. Idem—Idem— Trial by jury.—By the United States Constitution, in suits at common law where the value in controversy exceeds $20, the right of trial by jury is preserved. By the Virginia Constitution, in controversies respecting property, such mode of trial is declared preferable and sacred. Though by law in this state the jurisdiction of justices has at various times been enlarged, yet experience has taught the wisdom of adhering to fundamental principles and of returning to the old limits.</p> <p>3. Idem—Idem—Manipulation in fraudem legis.—The limitation by law cannot be changed by one, or by both of the parties, and such efforts have been held to be in fraiidem legis.</p> <p>4. Idem—Idem—Prohibition.—Where, under pretext of acquiescence of parties, the justice has extended his jurisdiction beyond that fixed by law, he has uniformly been checked by writ of prohibition.</p> <p>5. Idem—Idem—Hudson v. Lowry, 2 Virginia cases, reviewed and approved. The rulings thereof are founded on the soundest principles of public policy, and are within the plainest terms of the law, and are reaffirmed.</p> <p>6. Idem—Idem—Case at bar.—In 1877 S. was indebted to J. $126.73, and executed to him three bonds each for one-third thereof, payable at two, three and four months, respectively. When all were due, a justice rendered three separate judgments thereon, and issued fi. fa’s, and placed them in the hands of constable C., who collected part, and was proceeding to collect remainder, when S. applied to circuit court for a writ of prohibition, which was awarded. Upon error here,</p> <p>Held :—(Richardson, J., dissenting.)</p> <p>By the plain terms of the law the jurisdiction of the justice was limited to $50, but by the creditor’s methods, in fraudem legis, the justice usurped jurisdiction of a debt, which, though se

Judges: Lacy, Richardson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.