Case ID: ga_19/html/0549-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McDonald, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 101.
    Thomas S. Morgan, plaintiff in error, vs. George M. Keith, defendant.
    [1.] A defendant is chargeable with full costs, when sued in the Superior Court, although the verdict be for less than thirty dollars ; provided it be not rendered in a suit sounding in damages, and the demand set forth in the declaration be not proven to exceed the sum of thirty dollars.
    Illegality, in Whitfield Superior Court. Decided by Judge Trippe, October Term, 1855.
    Keith had sued Morgan for use and occupation of a lot of land, alleging two hundred dollars to be due.
    No payment or set-off was pleaded, and the Jury found twenty dollars for plaintiff, and costs of suit. Judgment was entered for twenty dollars, and for one hundred and three dollars costs; and execution issued accordingly.
    Defendant took affidavit of illegality to all said costs, except such as would have accrued in a Justice’s Court.
    The Court dismissed the illegality, and error is assigned on that decision.
    
      Walker, for plaintiff in error.
    Brown ; Underwood, for defendant.
   By the Court.

McDonald, J.

delivering the opinion.

The only question in this case is, whether the defendant can be charged with more costs than would have necessarily accrued, if the recovery had been before a Justice of the Peace?

[1.] The plaintiff has an election, to sue either in a Justice’s Court or one of the higher Courts, on any liquidated demand, debt or account, not exceeding thirty dollars, exclusive of interest; and before the Act of 12th December, 1809, he had a right to recover full costs. That Act, while it did not interfere with this right of election, disarmed plaintiffs of a power which they might use, and which some plaintiffs had used to harrass and oppress defendants with heavy bills of costs. It limited the costs to the amount with which defendants would be chargeable, in Justice’s Courts, in cases in which the verdict of the Jury should be for a sum under thirty dollars, and the demand set forth in the declaration should not be proven to exceed thirty dollars. The provisions of the Act do not extend to cases sounding in damages.

The civil jurisdiction of Justice’s Courts, is confined to suits for debt, on liquidated demands, or accounts, not exceeding (until the last session of the Legislature) thirty dollars, exclusive of interest. The plaintiff’s suit, in this case, was for the recovery of damages, and was not within the jurisdiction of a Justice’s Court. It did not, therefore, fall within the provisions of the Act of 1809, and the defendant is chargeable with full costs. The judgment of the Court below must, therefore, be affirmed.