Case ID: pa_153/html/0150-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mb Chief Justice Paxson,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shaw v. Squires, Appellant.
    
      Justice of the peace — Jurisdiction—Amount.
    On an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, the amount demanded by the plaintiff cannot be increased beyond the limits of the justice’s jurisdiction, except so far as to embrace interest which has accrued since the institution of the suit: Linton v. Vogel, 98 Pa. 459.
    Argued Oct. 28, 1892.
    Appeal, No. 88, Oct. T., 1892, by defendant, Henry D. Squires, from judgment of C. P, No. 2, Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1891, No. 138, on verdict for plaintiff, John Shaw.
    January 3, 1893 :
    Before Paxson, C. J., Stebbett, Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell and IIeydbick, JJ.
    Appeal from judgment of justice of peace.
    The facts as they appeared before Magee, J., are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
    
      Error assigned was the action of the court (1) in entering judgment for an amount greater than the judgment, with interest from the institution of the suit obtained before the aider-man ; (2) the alderman had no jurisdiction for the amount demanded in the statement of claim filed in court on appeal, hence the court erred in entering judgment for plaintiff for an amount not including interest from the institution of the suit greater than was within the alderman’s jurisdiction.
    
      C. S. Crawford, for appellant,
    cited, Linton v. Vogel, 98 Pa. 459; Collins v. Collins, 37 Pa. 387; Moore v. Wait, 1 Bin. 219; Owen v. Shelhamer, 3 Bin. 45.
    No appearance contra.
   Opinion by

Mb Chief Justice Paxson,

This ease is ruled by Linton v. Yogel, 98 Pa. 459, in which it was held that on an appeal to the common pleas from the judgment of a justice of the peace, the amount demanded by the plaintiff cannot be increased beyond the limits of the justice’s jurisdiction, except so far as to embrace interest which has accrued since the institution of the suit. In the case in hand the judgment before the alderman was for |240, and costs. Upon the trial of the appeal in the court below the plaintiff claimed from the defendant, as appears by his statement, the sum of $308.52, with interest from June 10,1890. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $326.17. Both the claim and the verdict were in excess of the jurisdiction of the justice.

Judgment reversed.