Case Name: Isaac Snedicker vs. George White
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1829-09
Citations: 11 N.J.L. 88
Docket Number: 
Parties: Isaac Snedicker vs. George White.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
Isaac Snedicker vs. George White.
If to an action before a justice of the peace, the defendant pleads title,.and •the plaintiff thereupon commences an action in the Supreme Court, and in 'his declaration enlarges his demand beyond wljat he demanded in the action .before the justice, the defendant will not be confined to his plea of title.
An action of debt had been brought before a justice of *88] the *peace, by Isaac Snedicker against George White, for $30, for the use and occupation of a shore or river bank, • of the river Delaware, for five years. Tn this action, the •defendant pleaded title to the premises, and filed a bond pursuant to the statute, and thereupon the plaintiff discon•tinued his suit before the justice, and brought the present .action of assumpsit in the Supreme Court, and declared as ■follows : “ For that whereas the said George White, to wit, on the first day of April, in the year of our Lord one ■thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, at the township 'Trenton, aforesaid, in the county of Hunterdon, aforesaid, ■was indebted to the said Isaac Snedicker in the sum of fifty ■dollars, for the use and occupation of a shore or river bank, messuage, lands and tenements of the said Isaac Snedicker, situate on the shore of the river Delaware, in the township-of Trenton aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, by the said Gleorge White, and at his special instance and request, and by the sufferance and permission of the said Isaac Snedicker, for a long time before then elapsed, had held, used, occupied,, possessed, and enjoyed ; and being so indebted, &c.”
To this declaration the defendant pleaded the general issue.
Hoisted, for the plaintiff,
now moved to strike out the-plea of the general issue, and contended that the defendant having pleaded title before the justice, was confined to his plea of title in this court also; and cited Rev. Laws, 639,. sec. 33, 31; 2 Caines Rep. 7 Cowen Rep. 311.
Hamilton and Wall contra,
resisted the motion on the ground that the cause of action as stated in the declaration, was different from that brought before the justice. The sum demanded in the action before the justice was only thirty dollars. In this action it is one hundred dollars. The time of the occupation was stated, to be five years, in the action before the justice. In this action the demand, was for use and occupation generally.
Hoisted replied.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Upon looking into the pleadings, we find that the plaintiff has extended his claim beyond his demand before the justice, in two particulars. It was for use and occupation for the term of five years, before the justice. The claim in this court is general; he might in this action recover for a longer period than five years. Before the justice, the demand was for thirty dollars;; *in this court, it is for one hundred dollars. It has [*89 been several times decided, that an extension here of the demand dissolves the obligation to adhere to the plea of.' title.
Motion overruled.