Case ID: pa_33/html/0044-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lowrie, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gibson versus Gault.
    Several counts for distinct penalties may be joined, so as to bring the sum in controversy within the jurisdiction of the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia.
    Error to the District Court of Philadelphia.
    
    This was an action of debt by Henry W. Gault against James G. Gibson, prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia county, to recover several distinct penalties for taking illegal fees, and for omitting to post a copy of the fee-bill in his office.
    The declaration contained twenty-four counts, in each of which a distinct penalty was claimed. Nineteen of these counts were for several penalties of $50; and the remaining counts, for several penalties of $10 each.
    On the trial, there was a verdict for the plaintiff for $112.75, to wit, $50 on the 1st count; $12.75 on the 12th count; and $50 on the 22d count; and on the remaining counts, the jury found for the defendant. Judgment having been entered on the verdict, the defendant sued out this writ, and here assigned for error, that the court below had no jurisdiction of an action for several distinct penalties, each for a less sum than the amount necessary to give jurisdiction.
    6r. W. Biddle and <3t. L. Dougherty, for the plaintiff in error,
    cited and relied on Gault v. Vinyard, 2 Casey 282.
    
      Marhland, for the defendant in error.
    
      
       This case was decided in 1858.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Lowrie, C. J.

It was not improper to join several counts for distinct penalties; and thus the sum in controversy is properly brought within the jurisdiction of the District Court. And it is not at all necessary for us to vindicate or deny the accuracy of the distinction taken, in Gault v. Vinyard, 2 Casey 282, between the Nisi Prius and the District Court, relative to jurisdiction. If the distinction is not well founded, then both courts have jurisdiction of such a case; and if it is well founded, the District Court, and not the Nisi Prius, has. So that, take it either way, the jurisdiction of this ease was rightly taken; and we do not discover any error in the trial.

Judgment affirmed.