Indianapolis & Cincinnati R. R. v. Elliott

Worden, J. 'Action brought originally in the Circuit Court by the appellee against the railroad company, to recover, under the statute, for stock killed upon the road where it was not fenced. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for 348 dollars. The questions involved in the case can be gathered from the following statement of the plaintiff’s losses, made by himself as a witness in the cause: 1. A red heifer, July 20,1859, worth.......................$15 00 2. The yoke of cattle, August 4,1859, worth............100 00 3. A cow, August 6,1859, worth............................ 30 00 [431] 4. A heifer, August 10, 1859, worth................ 15 00 5. A red steer, August 11, 1859, wmrth.................... 36 00 6. A heifer, August 23, 1859, worth........................ 20 00 7. A 3 year old steer, August 28,1859, worth............ 20 00 8. A 3 year old bull, Nov. 10, 1859, worth................ 18 00 9. 3 killed' — a 3 year old heifer, Nov. 15, 1859, worth. 18 00 Another, worth................................. 18 90 The 3d one of this lot, 2 years old, worth 10 00 10. A cow, Nov. 24, 1859, worth.............................. 30 00 11. A cow, Dec. 22, 1859, worth.................. 27 00 12. A cow, damaged.......................... 15 00 13. A heifer, January, 1860, worth.......................... 9 00 $343 -00 The original statute making railroad companies liable for stock killed or injured upon the road where it was not fenced, limited the remedy to suits before justices of the peace. The amendment of this statute (acts 1859, p. 105,) gives jurisdiction to the Circuit Court or Court of Common Pleas of the proper county, where the value of the animal or animals killed shall exceed 50 dollars. This amendment has been decided 'to be'jjprospective only, not embracing animals killed before the taking effect thereof. Indianapolis, &c., R. R. Co. v. Kercheval, 16 Ind. 84. "We are of opinion that the Circuit Court had not jurisdiction of any one of the thirteen different items set forth. The first and second arose before the amendment of 1859 took effect, and are not embraced in it. The other items are all under 50 dollars, and hence jurisdiction thereof was not given the Circuit Court or Common Pleas by the amendment. Each of the items constitutes a separate and independent cause of action, of which, by the terms of -the statute providing for a recovery, a justice of the peace only has jurisdiction. The [432] Circuit Court can not have jurisdiction of the items collectively if it has not separately. John 8. 8cobey, Oscar B. BLord and Cortez Bioing, for the appellant. All the animals killed at any one time constitute a separate and indivisible cause of action, and where, in such case, their value exceeds 50 dollars, the Circuit Court or Common Plena undoubtedly has original jurisdiction. Such -is not the case here. Here none of the animals (except the oxen which were killed before the amendment took effect,) are claimed to exceed 50 dollars in value, and the three constituting the ninth item, and charged as an entire killing, amount, at the price named, to less than 50 dollars. Per Curiam. The judgment is reversed, with costs. Note. — Davison, J., was absent when this cause was considered.