Case ID: whart_5/html/0094-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[ Philadelphia,
    January 4th, 1840. ]
    CLEADEN against YEATES.
    IN’ ERROR.
    The Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction on an appeal from an alderman or justice of the peace of a demand for a sum less than $100; although it should appear that the plaintiff had a right to recover more than $100; if he chooses to reduce his demand below that sum.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of Philadelphia.
    Yeates, the plaintiff below, brought an action before Alderman Badger, to recover for work and labour done for the defendant Cleaden, and obtained a judgment for forty-two dollars and twenty-four cents. Cleaden appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, where the cause came on for trial. The plaintiff’s counsel in his opening stated, that the plaintiff had done work for the defendant to the amount or value of one hundred and thirty-three dollars and sixty-six cents; on account of which payments had been made to the amount of ninety-one dollars and forty-two cents; leaving a balance due of forty-two dollars and twenty-four cents, which he claimed to recover.
    The defendant’s counsel thereupon asked for a non-suit; which was refused.
    Evidence was given of the plaintiff having done work for the defendant; the value of which was stated by a witness to be one hundred and twenty-five or one hundred and thirty dollars.
    The defendant’s counsel again asked the Court for a non-suit; which was refused; the Court deciding that they had jurisdiction of the case.
    The jury, under the direction of the Court as to the law, found a verdict for the plaintiff for forty-four dollars; whereupon the defendant took this writ of error, and filed the following exception.
    “That the Court below had no jurisdiction of the cause, as appears from the opening of the plaintiff’s counsel, and the evidence given.”
    Mr. Fallon, for the plaintiff in error.
    Mr. Hieskell, contra, was stopped.
   Per Curiam.

Neither the sum for which suit was brought, the matter in controversy, nor the amount for which judgment was given, is beyond the appellate jurisdiction of the Common Pleas. It never has been doubted, that a plaintiff may reduce his demand to the standard of a limited jurisdiction, by lopping off the excess; and it is not pretended that more, if so much, was done here.

Judgment affirmed.