Case ID: georgia-decisions_1/html/0149-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

justice’s JURISDICTION — DURESS.
    Edward Gresham vs. Thomas Landens, William McLenden and George B. Wright.
    
      Certiorari.
    
    1. When several suits are brought, between the same parties, in a Justice’s Court, the defendant can take advantage of their amounting to more than thirty dollars, only by a plea to the jurisdiction.
    
    3. Legal arrest is not Duress.
    This petition for Certiorari alleges, that these actions were commenced against defendants, for three promissory notes, amounting to seventy-five dollars. Two grounds of error are alleged: first, that the Court erred, in giving judgement in said cases, because, in the aggregate, they exceeded a Justice’s jurisdiction. Secondly: because the notes were obtained, when the maker, or principal, was under duress.
    
      
       See Brisco vs. Brewer, Ante, 105,
    
   It does not appear, that any exception was taken, to the jurisdiction in the Court below; and, as the question was not raised then, the Court committed no error, in entertaining jurisdiction —the cases being, prima facie, within their jurisdiction. As to the second ground, it appears, from the return, that they were given by defendants, whilst one of them, to-wit, Landers, was under an arrest, by virtue of an attachment, issued against him, for having failed to collect certain executions, put in bis hands, as a constable ; and that he gave said notes, for the purpose of obtaining his discharge. It appears, therefore, that he was in custody, under a legal process, issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The imprisonment was not, therefore, illegal, and could not constitute duress. It is therefore, ordered, that the Certiorari be dismissed, and the proceedings below affirmed.