Case ID: johns-cas_1/html/0401-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Cahill against Dolph.
    Justices may inquire into demands to the amount of 200 dollars, if the plaintiff claims no more than a balance of 25 dollars; and the declaration may state a debt or demand to the amount of 200 dollars, provided it concludes with demanding damages to 25 dollars only.
    In error on certiorari.
    
    By the justice’s return, it appeared that the plaintiff in the action before him, who is the defendant in error, declared in assumpsit, with two counts, in each of which he stated that the defendant below was indebted to him in 27 dollars and 50 cents, but concluded the declaration to his damage of 25 dollars only.
    It also appeared that the defendant below, in some shape or other, resisted the plaintiff’s demand, upon which a trial by jury was had, but no issue was formally joined.
    
      Riggs, for the plaintiff in error,
    relied upon two objections ;
    1. That no issue was joined before the justice, and that, therefore, the verdict and judgment before him were erroneous.
    
      2. That the sum in each count of the declaration exceeded the jurisdiction of the justice.
    
      Bowman, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The joining a formal issue before a justice is not material. It is sufficient if it appear to have been substantially done, which is the case here.

As to the second objection, a justice has jurisdiction to the amount of 200 dollars, provided the balance claimed do not exceed 25 dollars. Regularly, the plaintiff ought to state in his declaration the credit to reduce it to that sum, which in the present case is not done, but he concludes to his damage of 25 dollars only. It is therefore an objection of form, and not a substantial error, for which the judgment below ought to be reversed.

Judgment affirmed. 
      
      
         Tuttle v. Maston, supra 25. Stillson v. Sandford, 3 Caines R. 174.