Case Name: Solomon Blue, Plaintiff in Error, v. Weir and Vanlandingham, Defendants in Error
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1830-12
Citations: 1 Breese 372
Docket Number: 
Parties: Solomon Blue, Plaintiff in Error, v. Weir and Vanlandingham, Defendants in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 372–373

Head Matter:
Solomon Blue, Plaintiff in Error, v. Weir and Vanlandingham, Defendants in Error.
ERROR TO GALLATIN.
A justice of the peace has no jurisdiction if the whole claim of the plaintiff exceeds one hundred dollars, though it may be reduced by credits before suit brought to a sum less than one hundred dollars.
The defendants in error brought suit before a justice of the peace, against the plaintiff in error, on an account which amounted to two hundred and eighty-four dollars and eleven cents, but which was reduced, by credits, to eighty-four dollars and eleven cents, and recovered a judgment against him for that sum, from which judgment the plaintiff in error appealed to the circuit court of Gallatin county. On the trial of the cause there, a motion was made by the plaintiff in error to dismiss the suit, and reverse the judgment, on the ground that the account sued on exceeded the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace; the court overruled the motion, and affirmed the judgment of the justice; to reverse which judgment this writ of error is prosecuted, and the refusal of the court to dismiss the suit and reverse the judgment is, among other things, assigned for error.
Webb, for plaintiff in error.
Eddy, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court by
Chief Justice Wilson.
One of the errors assigned for the reversal of this judgment is, that the cause of action exceeded the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.
The statute of 1827 giving jurisdiction to justices of the peace in civil cases, enumerates, among other causes of action, any debt claimed to be due upon open and unsettled accounts between individuals, where the whole amount of the accounts of either party shall not exceed one hundred dollars. The account offered in evidence before the justice in this case by the plaintiff below, was an open and unsettled account amounting to two hundred and eighty-four dollars and eleven cents. Credits, it is true, are given at the foot of the account to the defendant, which reduce the amount purporting, by the account, to be due the plaintiff, below one hundred dollars. These credits are given by the plaintiff himself; the balance was not ascertained by a settlement between the parties as contemplated by the statute. To ascertain the balance due the plaintiff, it was necessary for the justice to investigate an account greatly exceeding one hundred dollars. This power is not conferred by the statute, and the justice exceeded his jurisdiction in assuming it. The judgment of the court below must be reversed for want of jurisdiction in the magistrate,
Judgment reversed.
Revised code of 1827, p. 259.
Vide Clark v. Cornelius, ante, 46. Maurer v. Derrick, ante, 197. Ellis v. Snider, ante, p. 336.