Case Name: Cornelius H. Vanderveer against John Ingleton
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1824-02
Citations: 7 N.J.L. 140
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cornelius H. Vanderveer against John Ingleton.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
Cornelius H. Vanderveer against John Ingleton.
ON CERTIORARI.
1. If the parties “agree to come to trial,” it is a sufficient agreement-(under the eighteenth section of the act for the trial of small causes, Rev. Laws, 634), “to enter, without process, an action before a justice,” in order to give such justice jurisdiction.
2. A general acknowledgment, that the defendant is indebted, will not authorize the justice in entering judgment for a specific sum.
The transcript sent up by the justice was as follows: (after stating the court and the parties) — “ In debt, demand $62, Ja.D. 6, 1823. The parties agreed to come to trial on the 18th instant, at two o’clock P. M.- — demand filed;: ■adjourned to 25th instant, at two o’clock P. M. Issued a-subpoena for Robert Chambers. Jan. 25th the parties-appeared, defendant acknowledged himself indebted, &c.r whereupon I gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff’’ — and-then proceeded in the usual form.
Swing moved to reverse the judgment,
on two grounds. 1. Because the justice had no jurisdiction of the cause. He said, *it did not appear, by the record, that the parties agreed to enter without process any action before the justice; which was necessary, in order to give the justice authority to proceed to judgment in the cause; and cited the eighteenth section of the small cause act. Rev. Laws 634.
2. That it did not appear that the justice had any authority to enter judgment for the sum mentioned in the judgment, or for any other sum, for the transcript only states, that the defendant acknowledged himself indebted,. &c., without stating any sum ; and it might, for aught that appears on the record, have been only for one dollar, as for the amount of the judgment.
W. Hoisted, contra,
contended upon the first objection— that sufficient appeared upon the transcript to shew that the statute had been substantially complied with; and as to the second objection, that it was obvious, from an inspection of the whole of the proceeding, that the acknowledgment made by the defendant went to the whole of the plaintiff’s demand; for if the defendant had any set-off to reduce it, he was bound to file it, and, not having done so, the words “ acknowledged himself indebted, &e.,” can mean only, that he admitted the demand of the plaintiff, as stated; and therefore shew that the justice was warranted in entering judgment for that sum.

Opinion:
Kirkpatrick, C. J.
Let the j udgment be reversed.
Bossell, J.
I think there is nothing in the first objection taken, but am willing to reverse the judgment on the-second ground.
Ford, J.
I am satisfied there is nothing in the first objection, but concur in the reversal, on the second objection.
Judgment reversed.