Summary
In State ex rel. David Bialeck, Inc. v. Ferguson, 58 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1952), we held an almost identical act applicable to Dade County in violation of § 22 of Art. V (now § 11 of Art. V) which fixes the upper limits of Justice of the Peace jurisdiction at $100.00.
Summary of this case from Miller v. DavisOpinion
April 15, 1952.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, J.N. Morris, J.
Loftin, Anderson, Scott, McCarthy Preston, Miami, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Glenn C. Mincer, State Atty., Miami, and Frank Knuck, Asst. State Atty., for appellee.
This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the Circuit Court granting a motion to dismiss a suggestion for writ of prohibition sought against the Honorable Thomas S. Ferguson, as Justice of the Peace of the Second Justice District of Dade County to prevent his trying, as ex officio Judge of the Small Claims Court, an action instituted by James Tallcott, Inc., against the relator.
Sole question presented is the constitutionality of Chapter 26667, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1951, increasing the jurisdiction in small claims courts in counties of the population of Dade to cases involving not more than three hundred dollars, the law it amended having provided that justices of the peace shall be judges of such courts.
Under Section 22 of Article V of the Constitution, F.S.A., justices of the peace are vested with jurisdiction of cases at law where the demand is not more than one hundred dollars.
The original act, creating small claims courts in the populous counties and designating the justices of the peace as judges of these courts, contained the provision that the civil jurisdiction of the two courts should be the same, except as to matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. Chapter 21915, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1943, and amendment, Chapter 22647, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1945.
Chapter 26667, supra, however, further amended the first act by raising the jurisdiction from one hundred to three hundred dollars. As a result a justice of the peace in the county affected would exercise in that capacity the jurisdiction specified in the Constitution, and as ex officio Judge of the Small Claims Court, jurisdiction of triple amount.
This, we agree with appellant, cannot constitutionally be. As long as the justice of the peace entertains matters where "the demand or value of the property involved" is not more than one hundred dollars, he is lawfully exercising the power which he derives from the organic law. The moment he undertakes to assume jurisdiction beyond that amount he definitely exceeds his powers.
Our conclusion is, therefore, that Honorable Thomas Ferguson should not try the controversy either as Justice of the Peace or Judge of the Small Claims Court, so the judgment is reversed with directions to issue the writ of prohibition.
Reversed.
SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL, HOBSON, ROBERTS and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
CHAPMAN, J., not participating.