In some states it is held that where there are criminal courts of record in the county, justices of the peace have no trial jurisdic tion in criminal causes, but can act only as committing magistrates ; Jackson v. State, 33 Fla. 620, 15 South. 250; Baldwin & Co. v. Bond, 45 La. Ann, 1012, 13 South. 742.
In some of the United States, justices of the peace have jurisdiction in civil cases, given to them by local regulations. The jurisdiction is usually confined to actions of contract, express or implied, replevin, and the like, where a small amount is involved. The limit ranges from $100 to $300, and usually torts and actions for unliquidated damages are not included. The local stat utes must be consulted, but the statutes regu lating the jurisdiction are sufficiently similar to make the citation of a few cases fairly illustrative of the principles generally ap plied.
Their civil jurisdiction did not exist by the common law, but depends upon the constitu tional warrant or statutory enactment ; Hor ton v. Elliott, 90 Ala. 480, 8 South. 103.
Where a justice has no jurisdiction the filing of an answer by defendant after the overruling of a motion to dismiss will not give him jurisdiction ; Rogers v. Loop, 51 Ia. 41, 50 N. W. 224. Where the appointment was void the consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction to the justice; Crawford v. Saunders, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 225, 29 S. W. 102.
Where an action would lie in either con tract or tort and suit is begun before jus tice, in order to sustain the jurisdiction the action will be presumed to have been brought upon the contract ; Schulhofer v. R. Co., 118 N. C. 1096, 24 S. E. 709.
Jurisdiction is sufficiently shown if it ap pears from the entire record of the proceed ing ; Sappington v. Lenz, 53 Mo. App. 44.
It is no objection to the jurisdiction that plaintiff remitted a part of his claim to bring it within the jurisdiction ; Hunton v. Luce, 60 Ark. 146, 29 S. W. 151, 28 L. R. A. 221, 46 Am. St. Rep. 165 ; McPhail v. John son, 115 N. C. 298, 20 S. E. 373 ; even where unliquidated damages are claimed. Where lumber was delivered by instalments and the total amount exceeded the jurisdiction, the claim could not be split up into separate ac tions for the different deliveries in order to bring it within the jurisdictional amount ; McPhail v. Johnson, 109 N. C. 571, 13 S. E.
799.
Where a stipulated attorney's fee would increase the amount beyond the jurisdic tion, the fee may be considered in estimating the amount in controversy ; Waters v. Walk er (Tex.) 17 S. W. 1085; even if the stipula tion for the fee is void ; Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. Raymond, 7 S. D. 451, 64 N.
W. 525.
Justices of the peace have been held to have no jurisdiction in trespass for the neg ligent killing of an animal ; Ripple v. Keast, 16 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 548; or negligently allow ing a dangerous animal to go at large; Sisco v. Miller, 2 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 143 ; or for injuries to a horse by a defective culvert ; Freedom Tp. v. Snowden, 5 Pa. Dist. R. 73 ; or in a suit on a foreign judgment; Baldwin v. Coyle, 7 Houst. (Del.) 327, 32 Atl. 15; in an action on the case for nuisance.; Heisey v. Witmer, 4 Pa. Dist. R. 290; or for quential damages due to negligence; Thilow v. Traction Co., 4 Pa. Dist. R. 83. But the jurisdiction was sustained in an action foi the destruction of fruit in baskets, run over and crushed by the wheels of defendant's wagon, consequential damages not being in volved ; Conner v. Reardon, 8 Houst. (Del.) 19, 31 Atl. 878; so also there was jurisdic tion of action for killing a horse by a railroad company because of a breach of con tract to maintain cattle guards; Harrow v.
R. Co., 38 W. Va. 711, 18 S. E. 926.
The jurisdiction in a garnishment proceed ing does not depend upon the amount the garnishee may owe ; Surine v. Bank, 59 Ill. App. 329; in an attachment the jurisdiction is determined by the amount in controversy, not the value of the property attached; Fly v. Grieb's Adm'r, 62 Ark. 209, 35 S. W. 214; Gramling v. Dickey, 118 N. C. 986, 24 S. E. 671.
A justice of the peace has no power to vacate a judgment unless it be one of de fault or' non-suit; 'Langford v. City of Doni phan, 61 Mo. App. 288 ; nor to settle a bill of exceptions ; Vlasek v. Wilson, 44 Neb. 10, 62 N. W. 245 ; for the purpose of preserving testimony on a hearing of a motion to dis charge the attachment; Donaldson v. Fisher, 43 Neb. 260, 61 N. W. 609; nor to grant a nonsuit where a case is on trial before a ju ry; Gunn v. Wood, 99 Ga. 70, 24 S. E. 407.