Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Johns. Cas. 333

Cahill v. Dolph

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1800

New York Supreme Court · decided 1800-04-15

In error on certiorari. By the justice’s return, it appeared that the plaintiff in the action before him, who is the defendant in error, declared in assumpsit, with two counts, in each of which he stated that the defendant below was indebted to him in 27 dollars and 50 cents, but concluded the declaration to his damage of 25 dollars only.

Decided 1800-04-15

Per Curiam.

¶1The joining a formal issue before a justice is not material. It is sufficient if it appear to have been substantially done, which is the case here.

¶2As to the second objection, a justice has jurisdiction to the amount of 200 dollars, provided the balance claimed do not exceed 25 dollars. Regularly, the plaintiff ought to state in his declaration the credit to reduce it to that sum, which in the present case is not done, but he concludes to his damage of 25 dollars only. It is therefore an objection of form, and not a substantial error, for which the judgment below ought to be reversed.(a)

¶3Judgment affirmed.

¶4 Tuttle v. Maston, supra 25. Stillson v. Sandford, 3 Caines R. 174.

/1/johnscas/333 · .json · Public domain