Case ID: h-j_4/html/0448-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hale’s Adm’r. vs. Howe’s Ex’r.
    courthmejurbdiei tiún in cases where mMstmÓ"1 uc debta"r “demand does not exceed foch caS are nnot a°®ulti?ceIeofe<t¿e peace.
    Appeal from Dorchestér County Court. This was' ail action of debt for gSO, and by a case stated it was admit-that the intestate of the defendant, (now appellant,) ’n ^'s was indebted to the testator of the plaintiff, (the appellee.) in his life-time, in the sum of §30, as stated in the declaration, and not more, and that the same was unpaid, and that for the recovery of that sum-this suit is brought. It was further agreed, that if the court should be of opinion that the county court had jurisdiction, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff for the above sum, and costs; but if on the contrary the court should be of opinion that the county court hail not jurisdiction,'but that the same was properly cognizable before a justice of the peace, then judgment of non pross was to be rendered in favour of the defendant, for costs. The county court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Earle, Johnson, and Dorsey, J. by
    Lecompte, for the Appellant, and by
    
      J. Bayly, for the Appellee.
    He insisted that neither a plaintiff nor a defendant, being an executor or administrator, could sustain a warrant, or be warranted before a justice of the peace, and referred to the act of 1791, ch. 68. Wells vs. Newkirk, 1 Johns. Gas. 228; and 3 HalPs L. J. 113.
   JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.