Case ID: yeates_4/html/0127-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Sed per Cur.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jonathan Knight against George Wiltberger.
    Justice of peace has no jurisdiction over an abstract question of right, though the paities agree to enter the action before him. His judgment must be for a sum certain.
    Cited in 10 S. & R. 229.
    Certiorari to Samuel Garrigues, esq., one of the justices of the peace of Philadelphia county.
    The return stated it to be an amicable action, entered in the justice’s docket, and referred by consent. On the 20th December 1803, the referees reported, that the plaintiff should receive from the defendant, one third part of all the monies paid for wharf-age of all vessels, except river craft, coming to the front of either of their wharves, to heave down, or otherwise ; judgment inde.
    
    Mr. Browne for the defendant,
    excepted to the record, that the suit had not been brought by due process, for any debt or demand, and that judgment had not been entered for a sum certain.
    Mr. Wells, for the plaintiff,
    urged, that they had mutually agreed to enter the suit, and submit the decision of their several rights to their neighbours, as an abstract question.
   Sed per Cur.

What right had a justice of the peace to entertain a jurisdiction over an abstract question ? No law gave it to him, nor could it be delegated to him by consent. The judgment also was radically bad, and must he reversed.