#### Jesse Allen *v.*Louisa Singleton.

In all cases oí contract, where the demand does not exceed twenty dollars, the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace is, by the act of 1824, p. 25, declared to be exclusive.

Since the passage of the act of 1824, it has been repeatedly decided, that in *summary process*cases, to entitle himself to a decree, the plaintiff must establish to the satisfaction of the presiding judge, a demand *beyond twenty dollars.*See Davidson v. Setzler; Cline v. Craven; Logan & M’Intyre *290v. Cobb, (not reported); and Ferguson v. Femster, 1 Bail. 516: an exception in the case of Nance v. Palmer, 2 Bail. 88, was compelled to be made where the case went to the jury.

*Before GANTT,*/., *at Sumter, Spring Term,*1839.

This was a suit by way of *summary process,*brought to recover the amount of an account, consisting of a charge for *hewing,*and a balance due for making a cotton screw. The charge for hewing was embraced in the' contract for making the screw. His honor the presiding judge, thought the charge for *hewing,*colorable merely, and therefore gave a decree for the defendant, reserving the right of the plaintiff to sue in the proper court, to recover the ten dollars for making the screw. The price for' making the screw was fifty dollars — forty dollars of which had been paid.

The plaintiff now moved the Court of Appeals to reverse the decree of his honor, on the following grounds :

1. Because his honor, by his decree, admitted that the plaintiff was entitled to ten dollars from defendant, and yet decreed for the defendant.

2. Because the party suing for an amount over a magistrate’s jurisdiction, and admitted by the court to be entitled to recover a sum within such inferior jurisdiction, is entitled to a decree for the sum, if it appear that the whole demand sued for was not merely colorable, with a view to carry the suit into the higher jurisdiction.

3. Because the decree was against the law and evidence.

Cotha, per O’Neamd, J.

In all cases of contract, where the demand does not exceed twenty dollars, the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace is, by the act of 1824, (acts of 1824, p. 25,) declared to be exclusive. Since- its passage, it has been so often ruled in summary process cases, that the plaintiff, to entitle himself to a decree, must establish to the satisfaction of the presiding judge, a demand beyond twenty dollars, that I confess I was surprised to find there was such a doubt among the profession, as to excuse an *291appeal. The cases of Davidson v. Setzler; Cline v. Craven; Logan & M'Intyre v. Cobb; and Ferguson v. Femster, 1 Bail. 516, have been uniform on the point. An exception in the case of Nance v. Palmer, was compelled to be made where the case went to the jury.

*Moses*& *Miller,*for the motion.

*C. W. Miller,*contra.

The court think that the judge below decided correctly: but as his decree for the defendant may preclude the plaintiff from recovering the ten dollars to which he is entitled before a justice, and as it is plain he did not intend that his decree should have that effect, it is ordered that the decree for the defendant be set aside and that the plaintiff be nonsuited.

Richardson, Evans, Earle and Butler, Justices, concurred.