Case ID: scl_5/html/0556-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Colcock, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1816.
    The Treasurer v. F. W. Young. The Same v. Executors of R. Ellison.
    County courts had no jurisdiction of an action on a sheriff’s bond.
    
      Scire facias to revive a judgment m the county court of I1 airfield, against Robert Young and Robert Ellison, sureties of J. Winn, on the bond of John Winn, in the penal sum of £1,500, conditioned for the performance of the duties of sheriff of Fairfield county. The sum recovered in the original action was £75. The defendants insisted that the county court had no jurisdiction of the original action. Of this opinion was the presiding judge, and judgment was given for defendants.
    Johnson, for the motion. Noble, contra.
    
   Colcock, J.

The third clause of the act of 1785, giving jurisdiction to the county courts, is in the following words : “ The justices of every county court as aforesaid, shall have full power and jurisdiction to hear and determine all causes at the common law, within their respective counties, to any amount, where the debt shall be liquidated by bond or note of hand,” <fcc., P. L. 367.

The only question then is, can this be considered as a liquidated demand 1 It is obvious, that the legislature meant to limit the jurisdiction to the most plain and simple cases which can occur; and_ they, therefore, must have meant those cases in which a specific sum was ascertained and fixed, by the parties themselves, in the bond or note. Now this was clearly not such a case. Not a bond or note for the payment of money, but for the performance of duties, involving a most extensive range of legal learning, such as, I believe, it was not the intention of the legislature to commit to these courts. It was urged that the judgment was of long standing; but I consider it as an assumption of jurisdiction, to try the cause in the first instance; it is, therefore, void ab initio; and no lapse of time can give validity to it. I am against the motion.

Grxmkb, Bay, and Smith, Js., concurred.