Case ID: del_25/html/0593-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pennewill, CJ.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James A. Morgan, William K. Morgan and Frank Jefferson, trading as Morgan and Jefferson, d. b., vs. George W. Wiley, p. b.
    1. Justices of the Peace — State of Demand.
    The statement in the record of the justice, “Plaintiff demands 40.00,” without the dollar mark, held sufficient, taken in connection with the whole-record.
    2. Justices of the Peace — Judgment.
    In a suit before the justice of the peace against certain defendants “trading as-Morgan and Jefferson,” in which the referee reported against the defendants “trading as Morgan and Jefferson,’’the entry of judgment by the justice against the defendants without adding the words “trading as Morgan and Jefferson,” held not to invalidate the judgment.
    
      (February 13, 1911.)
    Pennewill, C. J., and Boyce and Conrad, J. J., sitting.
    
      Andrew J. Lynch for plaintiffs in certiorari.
    
    
      John M. Richardson for defendant.
    Superior Court, Sussex County
    February Term, 1911.
    Certiorari directed to C. W. Clapham, a justice of the peace, in and for Sussex County. The action was against partners, and judgment was entered against the individual defendants, omitting the firm name.
    (No. 19
    February Term, 1911)
    The record of the justice is in part as follows:
    “Action in Assumpsit — Protested Cheque.
    “Plaintiff demands 40.00. * * *
    “And now to wit this seventh day of November, A. D. 1910, the said George W. Wiley claims a trial by referees, whereupon I appoint William H. Chipman, H. Clay Lewis and George H. Houston three judicious and impartial men of Sussex County referees to try this case. And now to wit, this seventh day of November, A. D. 1910, the said referees being summoned and sworn as provided by law, the said plaintiffs and defendant being present, the said referees heard all the allegations of the parties and their proofs and after maturely considering the same make a formal report in writing under their hands and return the same to me, to wit: ‘We find the said defendants James A. Morgan, William K. Morgan and Frank Jefferson trading as Morgan and Jefferson justly indebted to the said plaintiff, George W. Wiley, in the sum of forty dollars (40.00) with interest thereon, from the seventh day of September, 1910, and costs of suit’ (signed) Henry C. Lewis and William H. Chipman, George H. Houston dissenting. Whereupon, according to said report, I hereby render judgment against the said defendants, James A. Morgan, William K. Morgan and Frank Jefferson, in favor of the plaintiff, George W. Wiley for the sum of forty dollars and 10.42 costs of judgment.
    “C. W. Clapham, J. P. Nov. 7th, 1910.”
    The exceptions filed and relied upon covered two points: 
      First, that the record shows that no claim or demand certain was made by the said plaintiff but merely that “Plaintiff demands 40.00” without showing what the 40.00 stood for.
    The court held that the statement, the sum demanded, taken in connection with the whole record, was sufficient.
    
      Second, that the justice rendered judgment against the said James A. Morgan, William K. Morgan and Frank Jefferson, as individuals and not as partners, “trading as Morgan and Jefferson”, which it was contended was not in accordance with the report of the referees. The court held that the omission did not invalidate the judgment.
   Pennewill, CJ.

The judgment below is affirmed.