{
  "id": 1902369,
  "name": "Traylor v. Allen",
  "name_abbreviation": "Traylor v. Allen",
  "decision_date": "1895-06-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "13",
  "last_page": "15",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ark. 13"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "5 Ark. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726900
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "354"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/5/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ark. 219",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888757
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/47/0219-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ark. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725855
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/18/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ark. 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727308
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/5/0354-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ark. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726900
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/5/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ark. 219",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888757
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/47/0219-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 212,
    "char_count": 2993,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.587,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.388056865321102e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44238544409345876
    },
    "sha256": "8e8b9af1a507d374a7f187acb22fe10d3cad75573d251f0c0af2aa01148d3f58",
    "simhash": "1:97ebd3334b536c6c",
    "word_count": 508
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:14:10.612499+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Traylor v. Allen."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nGeorge M. Traylor & Co. recovered a judgment against Claude Allen before a justice of the peace of Drew, and afterward filed a transcript of the same before a justice of the peace of Pulaski county, and thereupon caused the Arkansas Pire Insurance Company to be summoned to answer \u201cwhat goods, chattels, moneys, credits or effects it may have in its possession or hands belonging to\u201d Allen to satisfy their judgment. The insurance company answered, and admitted that it was indebted to Allen upon a certain policy of insurance in the sum of one thousand dollars. Upon this answer, Traylor & Co. seek to recover a judgment against the garnishee for the Amount of their judgment. The right to do so is- disputed on the ground that the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction of the garnishment.\nThe constitution of this state limits the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in all matters of contract to cases wherein the amount in controversy does not \u25a0exceed three hundred dollars, exclusive of interest. It has been held by this court that a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction in a proceeding to garnish a debtof \u25a0of a defendant against whom a judgment has been rendered, if the amount of the indebtedness of the g\u2019arnishee to the defendant upon any single contract exceeds the limits of his jurisdiction ; and that when this appears in such a proceeding before him, it is his duty to dismiss it. Moore v. Woodruff, 5 Ark. 214; Woodruff v. Griffith, 5 Ark. 354; Martin v. Foreman, 18 Ark. 249. In this case the limit of the justice\u2019s jurisdiction was $300, exclusive of interest, as before \u25a0stated ; and the indebtedness of the garnishee to the defendant, Allen, was $1,000, without interest. The justice of the peace, consequently, had no jurisdiction \u25a0of the garnishment, and the circuit court acquired none by appeal.\nThe case of Moore v. Kelley, 47 Ark. 219, does not \u2022conflict with the cases cited. The difference is pointed out in *the last case.\nThe judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the garnishment proceeding is dismissed without prejudice.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Marshall & Coffman for appellants.",
      "Dan W. Jones & McCain for appellee. -"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Traylor v. Allen.\nOpinion delivered June 15, 1895.\nJustice oe the Peace \u2014 Jurisdiction\u2014Garnishment.\u2014A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction of a-garnishment where the amount of the garnishee\u2019s indebtedness upon any single contract exceeds $300, the limit of his jurisdiction in matters of contract.\nAppeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division.\nJoseph W. Martin, Judge.\nMarshall & Coffman for appellants.\nThe want of jurisdiction was not raised by Allen, and is not involved. If it were, the schedule shows a separate debt of $250, which was within tfie court\u2019s jurisdiction. But we think the larger debt was subject to garnishment for the $125 due. 47 Ark. 219 ; 31 id. 652 ; 46 id. 493.\nDan W. Jones & McCain for appellee. -\nThe justice had no jurisdiction, and the circuit court acquired none on appeal. 5 Ark. 214, 354. 47 Ark. 219 is not in conflict with the doctrine laid down in 5 Ark., supra."
  },
  "file_name": "0013-01",
  "first_page_order": 29,
  "last_page_order": 31
}