Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Killgrove v. Morriss

January 1916

ANNA BROWN KILLGROVE, GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF DENEZE BROWN (A MINOR), APPELLANT, V. CHARLES MORRISS AND FLORA MORRISS (HIS WIFE), RESPONDENTS.


Appeal from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Churchill County; T. E. Hart, Judge.

Mack & Green, for Appellant.

Percy & Smith, for Respondents.

By the Court, Norcross, C. J.:

This is an appeal from the judgment on the judgment roll alone. To plaintiff's complaint in an action at law brought in the district court to recover a money judgment in the sum of $113.40, a demurrer to the jurisdiction of the court was interposed and sustained.

The question is presented whether the district court or the justice's court has jurisdiction in actions at law brought by the guardian of a minor where the amount involved does not exceed $300.

Article 6, section 6, provides:

“The district courts * * * shall have original jurisdiction in all cases in equity; also * * * in all other

[39 Nev. 224, Page 226]

cases in which the demand exclusive of interest * * * exceeds three hundred dollars, also in all cases relating to the estates of deceased persons, and the persons and estates of minors and insane persons. * * *” (Rev. Laws, 321.)

Section 8 of the same article provides:

“The legislature shall determine the number of justices of the peace * * * and shall fix by law, their powers, duties and responsibilities, provided, that such justices' courts shall not have jurisdiction of the following cases, viz: * * * Of cases that in any manner shall conflict with the jurisdiction of the several courts of record. * * *” (Rev. Laws, 323.)

By statute, jurisdiction is conferred upon justices' courts “in actions arising on contract for the recovery of money only if the sum claimed, exclusive of interest, does not exceed three hundred dollars.” (Rev. Laws, 5714.)

It is the contention of counsel for appellant that the language of the constitution, supra, fixing original jurisdiction in the district courts “in all cases relating to * * * the persons and estates of minors,” brings this case exclusively within the jurisdiction of the district court because the action is brought by the guardian of the minor and involves rights growing out of his estate.

There are positive provisions in the sections of the constitution and statute cited, supra, which would fix the jurisdiction to try this case in the justice's court. However, if the construction contended for by counsel for appellant is given to the words in section 6, “in all cases relating to * * * the persons ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.