Case Name: Jansen, late sheriff, &c. against Stoutenbergh and Teller
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1812-10
Citations: 9 Johns. 369
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jansen, late sheriff, &c. against Stoutenbergh and Teller.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 369–369

Head Matter:
Jansen, late sheriff, &c. against Stoutenbergh and Teller.
NEW YORK,
Oct. 1812.
An action of debt for an escape against cognisable in a justice's court.
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Stoutenbergh and Teller brought an action of debt against Jansen, late sheriff of Ulster, before the justice, for the escape of one Smith, who was a prisoner on execution, in his custody, at the suit of the plaintiffs, for 15 dollars and 84 cents.
The plaintiffs proved, by a constable, that he delivered Smith, with the execution, into the hands of the defendant; and the defendant confessed that Smith was out of the gaol limits. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the names of the plaintiffs were written Tobias L. Stoütenbergh and Teller, and contended that there was a variance between the names, and those in the execution, but did not produce the execution, though the justice called on him for it.
The justice refused the nonsuit, and gave judgment for the plaintiffs.
It was objected, by the plaintiff in error, that the justice had ne jurisdiction of an action of debt against a sheriff for an escape.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment must be affirmed. The objeu» tion of want of jurisdiction in the justice, is untenable. The action falls within the denomination of actions cognisable in justices courts. There is nothing special in the proceedings, or judgment to be given, which can take away the jurisdiction. The magistrate is competent to afford the sheriff all the relief to which he would be entitled in any other court, relative to staying proceedings against him. And there can be no reason why jurisdie tion should be denied. The motion for a nonsuit was properly overruled. There was no variance between the plaintiffs' names in this suit, and the one against Smith. No objection having been made to any of the testimony, at the trial, it is now too late to hear any .
Judgment affirmed,.