{
  "id": 1873841,
  "name": "Mannington vs. Young et al., Directors, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mannington v. Young",
  "decision_date": "1880-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "287",
  "last_page": "289",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 Ark. 287"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Ark., 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8728572
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/1/0252-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 245,
    "char_count": 3163,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.8411741566552424e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8399286985457454
    },
    "sha256": "398470d9c162ef4c7a588ebb04a69dc56706ee94b86101af5d61d14db9c8a0e2",
    "simhash": "1:9ffa87b14a36fd48",
    "word_count": 539
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:23:57.212153+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mannington vs. Young et al., Directors, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "English, C. J.\nJ. E. Mannington commenced this suit, twenty-third of June, 1877, in the circuit court of Garland county, against School District- No. 6, of said county.\nThe action was founded upon six school warrants, three of them for $100 each, and one for $90, one for $80, and one for $80, each of them purporting to have been drawn in favor of plaintiff' on the treasurer of Hot Spring county, by L. G. liobbins, trustee of school district No. 19, of said county. It seems that the warrants were issued at different times, but all finally dated as of \"June 25, 1872.\nThe complaint averred that the warrants were presented to the treasurer of Hot Spring county for payment, and not paid for want of funds; and that District No. 6, of G-arland county, embraced the same territory included in District No. 19, Hot Spring county.\n- There was a demurrer to the complaint for want of jurisdiction, and upon other grounds, which the court overruled; and defendant answered, setting up several grounds of defense, which it is not material to notice.\nThe case was tried by the court, finding and judgment in favor of defendant, motion for new trial overruled, bill of exceptions, and appeal by plaintiff.\n\u201cThe circuit court shall have jurisdiction in ajlcivil and criminal cases, the exclusive jurisdiction of which may not be vested in some other court provided for by this constitution.\u201d Constitution of 1874, sec. 11, Art. VII.\nJustices of the peace \u201cShall have original jurisdiction in the following matters: First \u2014 Exclusive of the circuit court, in all matters of contract where the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of one hundred dollars, excluding interest,\u201d etc. Ib., sec. 40.\nNo one of the school warrants sued on was for a sum exceeding one hundred dollars, and appellant could not combine them so as to give the circuit court jurisdiction.\nIf he can maintain actions upon the warrants at all against the school district (as to which we give no opinion), they are within the original jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. Berry v. Linton, 1 Ark., 252; Fenter v. Andrews, 5 ib., 34; Collins et al. v. Woodruff, 9 ib., 463; Wilson v. Mason et al., 3 ib., 494; Martin v. Foreman, 18 ib., 249; Gregory v. Williams, 24 ib., 177.\n. There is no substantial difference between the-provisions of the constitutions of 1836 and 1864, prescribing the jurisdiction of the circuit court and justices of the peace, under which the above decisions were made, and the provisions of the present constitution. In the cases cited, the subject was well discussed, and it is needless to repeat the argument.\n. The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below with instructions to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "English, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Carl, for appellant.",
      "Davies, J. M. Rose, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mannington vs. Young et al., Directors, etc.\n1. Jurisdictiox o\u00ed Circuit Court: Joining sundry small claims.\n\"Where no one of several debts sued on exceeds the sum of one hundred dollars, the plaintiff can not combine them so as to give the circuit-court jurisdiction.\nAPPEAL from Garland Circuit Court.\nHon. J. M. Smith, Circuit Judge.\nCarl, for appellant.\nDavies, J. M. Rose, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0287-01",
  "first_page_order": 285,
  "last_page_order": 287
}