Briggs & Stratton Corp., et al. v. Smith


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-IA-00099-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-25-2003
Opinion Author: McRae, P.J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Transfer of action - Claim for accounting - Right to jury trial
Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Cobb and Carlson, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Dissenting Author : Easley, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Waller and Graves, JJ.
Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-27-2001
Appealed from: Tishomingo County Chancery Court
Judge: John C. Ross, Jr.
Disposition: Denied a Joint Motion to Transfer to the circuit court.
Case Number: 2001-123

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Automotive Electric Corporation d/b/a Engine Power Distributors, Rick Higginbottom d/b/a H & H Small Engine Repair and Mike Higginbottom




B. WAYNE WILLIAMS LEE ALEXANDER DURRETT JAMES MICHAEL TUTOR MICHAEL FRANCIS RAFFERTY GEORGE T. WHEELER, JR.



 

Appellee: Johnny Smith d/b/a Houston Sales and Service RICHARD PAUL JOHNSON JENNIFER INGRAM WILKINSON CARROLL INGRAM MARCUS ALFRED TREADWAY GARY L. CARNATHAN  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Contract - Transfer of action - Claim for accounting - Right to jury trial

Summary of the Facts: Johnny Smith, owner and operator of Houston Sales and Service, filed a suit in the Chancery Court of Tishomingo County against Briggs & Stratton Corp., Automotive Electric Corp. d/b/a Engine Power Distributors, Rick Higginbottom d/b/a H & H Small Engine Repair, and Mike Higginbottom. Briggs, Engine Power, and Mike Higginbottom filed a Joint Motion to Transfer, alleging that the circuit court was the only proper forum for which a jury trial and punitive damages could be requested. The chancellor denied the motion but certified that order for interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Claim for an accounting The defendants argue that the plaintiff's complaint does not request a true accounting, because the plaintiff is seeking exoneration from allegations that he misused parts and inventory. The plaintiff argues that in order to prove that his termination was in bad faith, he must show through an accounting that he did not misuse parts and inventory which is the alleged reason his contract was terminated. An accounting is an act or a system of making up or settling accounts, consisting of a statement of the account with debits and credits arising from the relationship of the parties. It implies that one is responsible to another for moneys or other things, either on the score of contract or of some fiduciary relation, of a public or private nature, created by law, or otherwise. Here, there is no demand for information, which is essentially what an accounting calls for. The plaintiff has the information. If he is seeking to obtain order forms and shipping records to corroborate his theory, he can demand these items from the defendants during discovery. Issue 2: Right to a jury trial The defendants argue that they have been denied their right to a jury trial. In chancery court, the right to a jury is purely within the discretion of the chancellor, and if one is empaneled, its findings are totally advisory. By failing to transfer the cause to circuit court, the chancellor in this case denied the defendants their right to a jury trial.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court