¶1 The alleged indebtedness of the defendant to the plaintiffs accrued from time to time, and at divers times, under and by virtue of a single contract, whereby H. Wade & Co. agree to supply the defendant with “ the entire output ” of a lumber mill, and they completely performed their part of such contract. The sum of money demanded by the plaintiffs was much more than two hundred dollars, and to facilitate the collection of their debt they subdivided their claim, so as to bring each part of it within the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace. They contend that they had the right to- do so, because they supplied the lumber from the mill at divers times and on various accounts. This contention is not well founded. The indebtedness having accrued, was single — a whole — one debt, arising out of a single contract that possessed a single purpose — the supply of lumber. This case clearly comes within what is said and decided in Jarrett v. Self, 90 N. C , 478 ; Moore v. Nowell, 94 N. C., 265; Kearns v. Heitman, 104 N. C., 332.
¶2 If, however, the delivery under the contract was made by distinct installments, an action would lie for the amount due for the same at once. But when more than one such installment has been delivered, but one action lies for the whole amount due on account of the same.
¶3 Affirmed.