Case ID: scl_13/html/0278-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Johnson\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. I. Gracy & Co. vs. William Wright. Executors of Waters vs. Wilks B. Waters.
    Where a summary process is taken upon a note within that jurisdiction, but which, pending the action, increases by interest to an amount beyoud that jurisdiction, the plaintiff may cither take judgment to the extent of the jurisdiction, or he may declare and transfer the case to the general jurisdiction.
    TRIED at Newberry, October, 1822. — These were summary processes on notes, the amount of which was within the summaiy jurisdiction of the court at the time the action was brought, but by the accumulation of interest pending the actions, the amount exceeded this jurisdiction at the time the cases Were called for trial. On the part of the defendants, it was objected that the demand being above the jurisdiction of the court, the plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment. The court ruled, that under the circumstances, the plaintiffs had their election to take judgment for £ 20, the extent of this jurisdiction, or that the defendants being in court, they might declare and transfer the caseto the general jurisdiction. They adopted the first alternative, and decrees were pronounced for them accordingly. And this was .a motion to reverse, them.
    
      Bauskett fy Dunlap, for the motion.
    
      Oneal <$* Johnson, contra.
   Mr. Justice Johnson

delivered the opinion of the court:

If it were necessary, the most ample reasons might he given in support of the opinion expressed iri the court below, as tending to the prompt and efficient administration of justice without prejudice to either party, and at the least possible expense. All that is necessaiy however to a rule of practice is, that it should he fixed arid known.— The concurrence of the court in the opinion expressed in the court below is therefore all that is necessaiy for the purposes of the present case.

The motions are refused.

Justices Huger, Gantt, Noti and Richardson, concurred.