Case Name: Hardy Bryan v. John Washington, et. al.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1834-06
Citations: 4 Dev. 479
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hardy Bryan v. John Washington, et. al.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 479–481

Head Matter:
Hardy Bryan v. John Washington, et. al.
The act of 1820, (J2ev. ch. 104.5,J and of 1829, clu 32 do not give Justices of the peace jurisdiction beyond sixty dollars, except when the debt is secured by a bond or note, or a liquidated account, and an attachment founded upon two former judgments for a sum exceeding that amount is void, and is not a justification to an officer acting under it.
Trespass, for seizing and taking* out of the possession of thc'plaintiff three slaves.
The defendants justified under process against one Sears Bryan, whose property they contended the slaves were — upon this plea the following facts were in-evidence. The process was an attachment, dated April 13th, 1833, upon two judgments in favor of the defendant Washington, each for $46 50, which were dated June 9tb, 1813, and returnable before a Justice of the peace.s The plaintiff contended that a Justice had no jurisdiction of a debt, for a sura exceeding sixiy-dollars, unless secured by bond, note or liquidated account, and as both the judgments were included in the attachment it was void, and did not justify either of the defendants. The presiding Judge, being of that opinion, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
Mordecai for the plaintiff.
J. H, Bryan contra.

Opinion:
DaNieu, Judge.
rAfter stating the case as above, proceeded : — By the act of 1803, (Rev. ch. 627,) a single Justice of the peace has jurisdiction of all debts and demands of £30 and under, of such things as are specified in the act, and among the demands specified is that of a judgment which may have been granted by
single Justice, and no execution issued on the same for twelve months. In the case before the court, the Justice has taken -jurisdiction of a demand- o! $93, made up by joining two justices, judgments, (each of which singly was within the jurisdiction of the magistrate,) in the same attachment. The Justice had no jurisdiction, in our opinion, to issue an attachment returnable before himself, and to render a judgment for the sum of $93, unless the same had been due by bond, note, or signed account as mentioned in the acts of 1820, (Rev. ch, 1045,) and 1829, ch. 52. Only in these three cases, lias the law given a Justice of the peace jurisdiction of debts or demands beyond the sum of thirty pounds. And as the Legislature lias been so particular, as to make an express enumeration of the description of cases where the jurisdiction off a Justice should be raised above thirty pounds, we think that all non-enumerated cases wore intended to bo excluded.— We do not feel ourselves authorised to add another case to the list, although it is one strongly within the reason of the Legislature for making out the three enumerated cases. The magistrate therefore having no jurisdiction in this, the attachment anil proceedings under it were void, and could be no justification to the defendants in taking the slaves from the possession of the plaintiff.
We do not mean to be understood as declaring that a judgment, rendered in a case clearly, within the jurisdiction of a justice when signed, will be.out of his jurisdiction, if the growing interest shall make the demand above ¿030 after twelve months shall have elapsed from the date of the judgment. We think a warrant may be brought before the Justice of the peace, and the plaintiff may declare on'liis old judgment, although the principal and interest may amount .to move than £30. It is a jnris- diction incidental to, and necessarily growing out of that, which authorised him .to give the first judgment,and enforce its payment — it permits him to complete that which he had a right to begin. The second warrant on the old judgment is in the nature of a scire facias to revive it, and is cognizable before the magistrate. But the plaintiff has no right to join several old judgments, although each singly is within the jurisdiction of a justice so as to warrant.for, and recover a sum exceeding £30, by means of such consolidation. We are of opinion that the judgment rendered .in the'Superior Court should be affirmed.
Bee, Curiam.' — Judgment aeeirmed.