Case Name: Jones & Crawford against Reed
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1799-01
Citations: 1 Johns. Cas. 20
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jones & Crawford against Reed.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 21–23

Head Matter:
Jones & Crawford against Reed.
Courts of inferior jurisdiction not proceeding according to the course of the common law, are confined strictly to the authority given them, they can take nothing by implication but must show the power expressly given them in every instance.
The sound rule of construction in respect to the courts of justices of the peace, Is to be liberal in reviewing their proceedings as far as repeats regularity and form, and strict in holding them to the exact limits of jurisdiction, prescribed to them by the statute.
Where a warrant was issued by a justice, against two joint debtors, and one only was taken and brought- into court, and the other did not appear, and the justice gave judgment against both, it was held, that the justice could not proceed to give judgment, until both of the defendants were brought into court.
In error on certiorari. The plaintiffs, in error, were sued as joint debtors, before the justice in the court below. A warrant was issued against both, but one of them only was taken, and brought into court; and the other did not appear. The plaintiff below, declared against both defendants, and the one taken, having pleaded alone, an issue was thereupon joined, and tried by a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff, on which the justice gave judgment against both defendants.
S. C. 1 Caines’ R. 594. (n)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It is a clear and salutary principle, that inferior jurisdictions, not. proceeding according to the course of common law, are confined strictly "to the áuthority given them. They can take nothing by implication, but must show the power expressly given them, in every instance. 3 Burr. 1366. 3 Term, 444. 4 Black. Com. 268. Stra. 1256. 2 Ld. Raym. 1144. Salk. 406.—4 J. R. 292. 1 Hill, 130.
The sound rule of construction, in respect to the courts of justices of the peace, is to be liberal in reviewing their proceedings, as far as respects regularity and form, and strict in holding them to the exact limits of jurisdiction, prescribed to them, by the statute. 1 Ld. Raym. 80. Cowp. 19.
To apply these principles to the present case. The act making joint debtors answerable to their creditors, separately, and giving a new mode of proceeding, is posterior to the act granting civil jurisdiction to justicés of the peace, and in alces no mention of them. Rev: Laws, v. 1, p. 353. it [*21] directs that ^process shall issue against the joint debtors, in the manner then in use ; and if either be taken and brought into court, he shall answer. This act contemplates, in every instance, a compulsory process, on which the defendant is taken and brought into court; and, until that: be done, the court cannot proceed in the case ; whereas, the ten pound act, giving civil authority .to the justices) directs only a summons, in the first instance, against freeholders and inhabitants having'families; and if the summons be personally served, and the defendant does. not. appear, the justice ca'nnot compel him, but.is to proceed and try the cause, without his either being taken or. brought into court. The act as to joint debtors, accordingly, gives á power and jurisdiction different, from, and unknown to, the ten pound act. So, in respect to execution, the. act relating to joint debtors directs,, that the execution shall be against all the debtors, but shall not, however, issue against the body, or sole property of the one not taken nor brought into court.; whereas, by the ten pound- act, execution is directed to issue against the goods and chattels of all the persons against whom it is granted; and. for want of sufficient goods of such persons, their bodies are to be taken.
Here are new powers and new modes of proceeding, applicable to the courts of common law, and contrary to the express forms and directions given to the justices' courts, and in which no mention is made of them. The court are, therefore, of opinion, that, according to the settled rules of interpretation, justices of the peace have no jurisdiction in the case Of joint debtors, unless both are duly .served with process, and that, therefore, the judgment, in this case, must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
At common iaw where there were two or more persons-jointly indebted, and one kept out of the way so as not to be served With process, the plaintiff before he could go on against the others must have pursued the absentee to outlawry. Cowen's Treatise, 497. There being however no process adapted to outlawry in a justice's court in New York, the suitor was in this case remediless until the act of April 7th, 1801, which gave justices the right to proceed against joint debtors, where some of them were not served with process or brought into court. By the Revised Statutes' of New York, if process shall have issued against two or more persons jointly indebted, and shall have been personally served upon either of the defendants, the defendant who may have been served with process shall answer to the plaintiff; and the judgment in such case if rendered in favor of the plaintiff shall be against all the defendants in the same manner as if all had been served with process; but execution shall only be served upon the persons of the defendants who were served with process in the suit upon the property of such defendants, except where such defendants are partners of the joint debtors who were not served, in which case the execution may be collected of the personal property of such joint debtors, owned by them as partners of .the other defendants appearing or served with process, or with any of them. 2 R, S. 2d edit. 176, § 122; 179, 180, § 138, 139.