Justices of the peace are regarded as civil public officers, distinct from peace or police officers.  These courts have jurisdiction over minor civil matters.  Their powers of civil jurisdiction are determined by the respective statutes governing their position.  For example, according to Article 5 section 19 of the Texas Constitution, the justices of the peace courts in the state of Texas have exclusive jurisdiction in civil matters where the amount in controversy is $200 or less.  Later the amount was raised to $10,000.  In Texas, justices of the peace courts were given the right to hear cases involving eviction as well as cases involving foreclosure and liens against personal property where the amount falls within the justice of peace court’s jurisdiction.

In most of the states, at the highest level, a justice can handle cases involving contracts, torts and injuries to personal property.  Justices of the peace do not have jurisdiction over cases that involve real property titles, easements, or rights of way.  Depending on the jurisdiction, a justice of the peace dispenses summary justice.  S/he deals with local administrative applications in common law jurisdictions.

The original jurisdiction given to justice courts is not exclusive but concurrent with that of the superior court[i].  Justice courts have concurrent jurisdiction with superior courts over the civil penalty.

Generally, justice courts are created by the constitution with limited jurisdiction.  No equitable jurisdiction is thereby vested in the justice court.  A justice of the peace court is not entitled to exercise equitable jurisdiction.  However, a defendant appearing in a court of justice of peace can set up an equitable defense.  A defendant can set up in his/her answer as a defense that the judgment was obtained by fraud practiced upon him/her.  As such, an equitable defense can be interposed in a justice’s court[ii].

A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a right of possession that depends upon an equitable interest in the premises[iii].  More specifically, a justice of the peace court cannot settle the rights of the contending parties where the actions were in equity.

Usually, the character of an action before a court is to be determined by particular allegations incorporated in the complaint.  A party can assume that s/he is entitled to equitable relief and proceed to formulate his/her pleadings accordingly.  Later, a court may declare that s/he is not entitled to the relief sought.  A complainant cannot be turned out of court for that sole reason.  The complainant must be benefited with relief through any of the theories in his/her pleadings.  Law and equity must be administered in the same case.  When the facts do not warrant an equitable relief demanded, a complaint will be sustained for legal relief.  The facts must warrant the legal relief[iv].  A plaintiff proceeds upon the theory that his remedy is by a suit in equity.  However, his/her complaint fails to state facts sufficient to entitle him to equitable relief.  When the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a money decree other than an equitable relief, the court must provide the relief to the plaintiff[v].

“The jurisdiction is governed by the matters alleged and proven, and the plaintiff is entitled to any relief these entitle him to have without regard to the fact whether or not they are embraced in the prayer for relief“[vi].  If the justice can give any relief upon the cause of action, it is immaterial that the plaintiff prays for another relief which the justice has no jurisdiction to grant[vii].

Moreover, a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction in an action of forcible entry and detainer.  The court cannot determine the rights of partners, upon discontinuing the partnership, in the leases which they hold or in the good-will of the partnership business.

[i] General Acceptance Corp. v. Sauget, 13 Wn. App. 593, 596 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975).

[ii] Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107, 118 (U.S. 1890).

[iii] Dawson v. Dawson, 17 Neb. 671, 672 (Neb. 1885).

[iv] Donovan v. McDevitt, 36 Mont. 61, 64 (Mont. 1907).

[v] Goodrich Lumber Co. v. Davie, 13 Mont. 76 (Mont. 1893).

[vi] Fulps v. Mock, 108 N.C. 601, 605 (N.C. 1891).

[vii] Hargrove v. Harris, 116 N.C. 418, 421 (N.C. 1895).