Case ID: njl_3/html/0466-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court. By the Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOPPER against STEELMAN.
    OH CERTIORARI.
    State of demand may exceed the sum contained in a summons.
    The first objection to the judgment below, was, that the summons was issued for a smaller sum than the state of demand set out, or the judgment was rendered for. The summons was for $99.99, and the state of demand and judgment was for $100.
   By the Court.

This is no cause of reversal; it is every day’s practice, and no injury arising from [*] it.

Pierson, for plaintiff.

The second objection was, that the state of demand was for more than one hundred dollars, and therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the justice. The fact was, that the state of demand set out a note of hand, dated 11th November, 1809, for §94.61, on which was due, fourteen months’ interest, which, together with the principal, makes the sum of hundred dollars.

It was contended by the counsel for the plaintiff, that by calculation it would appear that fourteen months’ interest added to §94.61 principal, would exceed a hundred dollars.

By the Court

No rate of interest is set out [661] in the state of demand. A creditor may take any rate of interest under seven per cent. The defendant has no cause of complaint.

Let judgment be affirmed.

Cited in Griffith v. Clute, 4 Halst. 264; Howell v. Burnett, Spen. 265. 
      
       Judgment may exceed the sum indorsed on a warrant. South. 89.
      
     
      
       S. P. J Balst. 115. 4 Ih. 264.