#### Pendleton *vs.*Fowler.

A justices court possesses only a special, limited, and inferior jurisdiction. Its pro. ceedings must, consequently, show such facts as constitute a case withi'n its jurisdiction, or the law regards the whole as *coram nonjudice*and void.

Where it appears that an account upon which a suit is founded,- is not filed with the' justice until after the summons has been issued.-it is clear that he can legally take no cognizance of it, and he having no jurisdiction, the circuit court can acquire none' 6y appeal, and' should dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction.

*Writ of error to the circuit court of Pulaski county.*

This was a suit commenced by Henry F. Pendleton against Absalom Fowler, before a justice of the peace, on an account of $55 90, for measuring carpenter’s work, done on the defendant’s house.

It appears from the transcript, that the account was marked, *“Filed, 5th Augtist,*1841,” and the summons bears date the *5Lh day of July,*1841: and was made returnable on the *Idth of July,*1841.

On the *19th August,*1841, the cause was tried before tho justice, *42and judgment given for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the circuit court of Pulaski comity, and the cause was determined, before Judge Clendenin, at the May term, 1844.

The *appellant,*Fowler, moved the court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction, which motion the court sustained, and ordered the suit dismissed; which Pendleton assigns as error in this court.

Fowler, pro se.

The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was proper and in apt time, although the parties had appeared: and the judgment on the motion was in strict accordance with law. 8ee case of *Reeves vs. Glarlc,*5 *Árk. R.*27.

The account incorporated in the transcript is not marked filed by the justice of the peace; and the legal presumption therefore is that it was not filed. And until the note or account is filed by the justice, he has no authority to issue a summons; it being absolutely necessary that it should be filed in order to give him, and show upon his proceedings tha the has, jurisdiction, otherwise the proceedings are *coram nonjuilice. Rev. Stai. p.*494, 495, *section*17, 21. *Reeves vs. Clark,*5 *Ark. R.*27. *Anthony, ex parte,*5 *Ark. R.*358.

Which decisions and statute, it is believed, conclusively settle this case and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

And further, even admitting, which is not done, that the endorsement on the account of the words, “Filed, 5th August, 1841,” without any signature attached thereto, amounts to a legal filing, yet it would not be sufficient to sustain the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, because the summons was issued before that date, to wit: on the *5th of July.*And the sections of the statute above referred to, as well as the decisions, are peremptory, that the account must be first filed.

Johnson, C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

There is but one question presented by the record in this case. The question is, did the court below err or not in dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction? The statute provides that in every suit founded on an account, a bill of the items of such account shall be filed with the justice, before any process shall be issued in the suit. “A justice’s court is a court of the lowest grade known to *43our constitution and laws. It possesses only a special, limited, and inferior jurisdiction, and therefore the proceedings therein, accoz’d-ing to the principle almost universally admitted, must show or set forth such facts as constitute a case within its jurisdiction; otherwise, the law regards the whole proceeding as *coram non judice,*and absolutely void.” *Reeves vs. Clark;*5 *Ark. R.*27. The act is imperative that the account which is the foundation of the action, shall be filed before the issuance of the writ. This requirement is broad as language can make it, and admits'of nó exception. We do not think proper to give any opinion at this time, as to what is necessary to constitute such a filing as is contemplated by the statute, 'as that question is *not*directly raised by the record. It appears affirmatively, and it is not controverted by the plaintiff, that the bill of particulars was filed subsequently to the issuance of the summons. The summons was issued on the fifth of July, and the account was not filed until the fifth of August following. It is clear that under this state of case the justice could not legally take cognizance of it, and the facts not being such as to confer jurisdiction upon the justice, it follows as a necessary consequence that the circuit court did not possess it, -and decided correctly in dismissing the case. We are therefore clearly of opinion that there is no error in the judgment of the circuit court rendered in this case. It is therefore reconsided and adjudged that the judgment of the circuit court of- Pulaski county be and the.same is hereby, in all things, affirmed. '