Case ID: scl_5/html/0407-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    NOV., 1814.
    William Wells ads. Justin Reynolds.
    To a summary process no discount can be set off, the amount of which' exceeds the summary process jurisdiction. For the court is limited to1 jS20, and whether the claim' is made by plaintiff or defendant, the jurisdiction is alike limited; nor will the court allow the defendant to withdraw a part of the discoust, in order to give jurisdiction.
    Tvv.o questions were made in this case : 1st. Whether a defendant in a summary process can avail himself of a set off, by way of defence, which is over the summary jurisdiction of the court ? 2d. If he cannot, whether he can at the trial relinquish a part of his demand, so as to reduce it within the summary jurisdiction,
    Johnson, for the motion. Farrow, contra.
    
   Nott, J.

1st. The summary jurisdiction of the court is limited to twenty poundsr and whether the claim is setup by the plaintiff or defendant, the jurisdiction is the same. The discount, therefore, was properly rejected in this case. See 1st Nott and M’Gord, 192, 194. 2d do. 487. 2d. In some cases, perhaps, no incon, ven*once would result from permitting a defendant to withdraw, or' relinquish a part of a discount, and set off the remainder; but that could not be done, where the demand consisted of one entire sum % becauge the whole principle would still be involved in the decision. The same thing might also happen, and oftentimes would, where it consisted of several distinct items. The best way, therefore, will be to adopt the rule of the court below ;• to reject the discount in-all cases, where it appears upon the face of it, that the court has-no jurisdiction. The motion in this case must be rejected.

Colcock, Brevard, and Grimke, Js., concurred.