BRUSH AND HATHAWAY against TORRY

No. 4. BRUSH AND HATHAWAY against TORRY. Franklin, 1819. IN an action of debt, on judgment, brought before a Justice, his jurisdiction must be ascertained, by the amount due on the judgment, as appears by the record and proceedings, under the judgment, ERROR brought to reverse a Judgment of Franklin County Court, rendered November term, 1819. The plaintiff below, (Torrey) brought his action before ,a Justice Peace, on a confession note, for sixty dollars, stating' that the sum of fifty-three dollars was allowed by the plaintiff, and agreed to be endorsed on said Judgment. Plea — That the Justice had no jurisdiction. Plea over-ruled by the County Court. [MAJORITY — By the Court,] By the Court, The jurisdiction of the Justice must be determined by the amount due on the judgment, as appears on the record and proceedings under the judgment: Any payment, the evidence of which is extrinsic, cannot be taken into consideration, in determining the jurisdiction. In this case the declaration shews only that the sum of fifty-three dollars was agreed to b.e endorsed, and the jurisdiction of the Justice depended, not upon the amount due, as appeared on the record, but upon the existence of facts, the evidence of which was extraneous. Judgment — There is error, and that Justice had no jurisdiction.