The Daily clarion., 1867-04-10
DECISIONS .OF THE HIGH COURT
ERRORS AND APPEALS.
OCTOBER TERM, 1866.

II. PLUMMER,) Error Of tho Circuit
0,292 VS.. Court of Ran kin
J. d. West. Nv County.
Opinion of Ms Court deliVeyed by Jas
hce ElleH 4ltl
The only question in this case Is,
whether an attachment issued by, and
returnable before a justice of the peace,
for sum not exceeding fifty dollars,
can be levied on real estatep
Art 20 of the act relatingto justices
of the peace, Rev. code 40S, provides
that all judgments rendered, and oil
Executions issued, by any justice of
"the peace, shall bind all the goods
nand chattels Of the defendant within
"the county where rendered, from the
"date Of said judgment, and also oil
"the goods and chattels of the sureties
'from the time of their entering them
s'selves as such, until the same shall
"be satisfied, and shall be of equal
"dignity with judgments obtained in,
cor executions issued form Circuit
"Court: Provided, that land tenements
"and heriditaments shall in no case
"be liable to any execution issued by
ga justice of the peace, &C."
Art. Al, of the attachment law, Rev.
code 382, enacts that 'justices of the
"peace shall have cognizance of at
"tachments, in all cases where the
"amount in controversy shall be within
stheir jurisdiction, and all the provis-
''ions of this act are declared to ex-
'tend to suits instituted by attach
"ments before justices of the peace, SO
'far as they may be applicable, and
''the like proceedings shall be had
stherein as in similar suits in the Cir
"cuit Courts"
The solution of the question depends
upon the construction to be given to
these articles. The former provision
we think was assigned to limit the ex-
tent Of the Jurisdiction of justices of
the peace in all cases, and that its
effect is to confine the operation of all
judgments rendered, and executions
issued by them, to the "goods and
chattels'' of the defendant, and to re-
move real estate wholly beyond their
reach. Standing alone, surely no 9th
er Interpretation could be given to it.
The latter article does not expressly
extend the provisions of the attach
ment law respecting the levy upon
land, and the sale of it under the
judgment, to cases within the jurisdic-
ton Of Justices of the peace, but it
merely extends the provisions of the
act to suits instituted by attachments
before justices Of the peace, $50 far as
they may be applicable" These latter
words necessarily refer to the general
provisions of law regulating the power
and jurisdiction ofjustices of the peace
in other cases, and are controlled by
them. The provisions of the attach
ment law are applicable" to suits
commenced before justices of the
peace only so far as they come within
the limits of the ordinary jurisdictions
of these officers. AS that jurisdiction
does not extend to subject real estate
to it's process, therefore the clauses Of
the attachment law that regulates the
seizure and dispository of real estate
are not applicable to such proceed
ings when brought before a justice OF
the peace.
This construction renders the two
articles consistent with each other, and
does not create the anomoiy of a
jurisdiction over real estate depending
for its existence upon the form of the
writ by which the suit is commenced.
AS the decision of the Circuit Court
was in harmony with these views it
will be affirmed.