Case ID: scl_6/html/0478-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Columbia, November Term, 1814.
    William Wells ads. Justin Reynolds.
    Johnson, for the Motion,
    
    Farrow, Contra.
    
    To a summary process no discount ean be set off, the . amount of which ex.ceeds the summary process jurisdiction. For, the court is limited to £20, and, whether the claim is made by plaintiff or defendant, the jurisdiction is alike limited; nor will the court allow the defendant to withdraw a part of the discount, in order to give juristion.
    Two questions were made in this case: 1st, Whether a defendant in a Sum. Pro. can avail himself of a set off, by way of defence which is over the summary jurisdiction of the court? 2nd, If he cannot y whether he can at the trial relinquish a part of his demand, so as to reduce it within the summary jurisdiction.
   Nott, J.

1st, The summary jurisdiction of the court is limited to twenty pounds; and whether the claim is set up by the plaintiff or defendant, the jurisdiction is the same. The discount, therefore was properly rejected in this case. (Nee lsi Nott and McCord, 192 — 194. 2nd do. 487.) 2nd, In some cases, perhaps no inconvenience would result from permitting a defendant to withdraw.or relinquish a part of a discount, and set off the 'remainder ; but that could not be done where the demand consisted of one entire sum: because the whole principle would still be involved in the decision. The same thing might also happen, and oftentimes would, where it consisted of several distinct items. The best way, therefore, will be to adopt the rule of the pourt below j to reject the discount in all cases; Where it appears upon the face of it, that the court has no jurisdiction. The motion in this case must be rejected.

Justices Colcock, Brevard, and Grimke concurred.