Case ID: njl_1/html/0205-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Cur.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[177] SMITH v. LAYTON.
    The justice has no jurisdiction of a cause where the title to land is in dispute.
    
      Certiorari to Justice Annin.
    Smith’s action below was brought on a sealed note, which Layton acknowledged. In his defence he claimed as an offset an allowance to be made for certain rents which he alleged to be due from Smith to him, on account of certain property which he claimed title to, and which was in Smith’s possession. Smith insisted that he was the owner of the land in fee, and had been in possession sixteen years. The justice, however, permitted the defence set up to go to the jury.
   Per Cur.

Reverse the judgment. The justice had no jurisdiction in case of title. He should have overruled the plea.-

Cited m Harvey v. Drummond, Coxe 218.