David McFarland vs. Thomas McLaughlin

David McFarland vs. Thomas McLaughlin. If an action be brought before tbe County Court on several promissory notes each of which is within the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace — yet if the aggregate amount of all the notes exceed his jurisdiction, such action is not made cognizable before a Justice of the Peace, and therefore the County Court have jurisdiction of it. Bennington, July, 1824. THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought originally before the r, r, . . County Court, upon -two promissory notes, either of which, was within the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace; hut both of which exceeded in amount the sum of one hundred dollars. Plea — In abatement to the jurisdiction of the Court, And now upon appeal, the cause came on for trial upon the pleadings below. D. Church for the plaintiff. Smith for the defendant. [MAJORITY — Aikens J.] Aikens J. delivered the opinion of the Court. A joinder of distinct causes of action, which might be joined at common law, is no where forbidden by our statute. It is the matter in demand or cause of action, which determines the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace, over the action or suit itself. (St. 15 Nov. 1821, Sec. 1.) It is only from the action or suit originally made cognizable before a Justice of the Peace, that the jurisdiction of the County Court is taken away. (2 Stat. 101.) From a recurrence to the matters in demand, which are legally joined in this suit, it appears that a Justice of the Peace had not jurisdiction of the action. The County Court therefore had jurisdiction of the action. The principle settled in the case Keys v. Weed. 1 D. Chip. Rep. 379 governs this case. Judgment that the action do not abate.