Writ of error to the Circuit Court of Wilcox County ¡ White sued Hill before a justice of the peace, and, after judgment, the latter appealed to the circuit court where the judgment was affirmed, and rendered against Hill and also against Proctor, his security in the appeal bond. The summons was issued on the 3Qth May, returnable, the 6th July.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1840-06-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 1916
9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1— 1. The circuit court very properly refused to quash the proceedings of the justice of the peace, because the summons was returnable more than thirty days after it was issued. If this was an irregularity in the justice of the peace, it is not available to the defendant, after appeal. The statute regulating appeals from justices of the peace, provides that no defect in the summons, warrant, or other proceedings, before ’the justice, shall be noticed in the appellate court.
¶22. This action is not like a demand for an unliquidated account, so as to be within the influence of the decision in the case of De Sylva v. Henry, (3 Porter 132.) It is more like an action on a specialty, or promissory note, as the demand is ascertained and fixed by law. The party is entitled to institute as many 'Suits as he has certificates; although the courts, on application, might consolidate in the same manner, as in suits on specialties, <or promissory notes. To authorize the defence of a former re*578■covery, it should have been shown that the former suit was for ■the same identical certificate; and it was not sufficient to show ■that one suit could have covered both certificates.
¶33. It was not the duty of the witness to leave his certificate with the clerk of the circuit court, to be taxed in the bill of costs against Collins & Co., nor was he bound to await the return of •an execution against them; after proving his certificate within five days from the term of the court when the suit against Collins & Co. was determined, and receiving his certificate, his right of action against the defendant was complete. (Aikins Digest, 452, P. P. 1837, p. 26.)
