¶11st. The summary jurisdiction of the court is limited to twenty poundsr and whether the claim is setup by the plaintiff or defendant, the jurisdiction is the same. The discount, therefore, was properly rejected in this case. See 1st Nott and M’Gord, *408192, 194. 2d do. 487. 2d. In some cases, perhaps, no incon, ven*once would result from permitting a defendant to withdraw, or' relinquish a part of a discount, and set off the remainder; but that could not be done, where the demand consisted of one entire sum % becauge the whole principle would still be involved in the decision. The same thing might also happen, and oftentimes would, where it consisted of several distinct items. The best way, therefore, will be to adopt the rule of the court below ;• to reject the discount in-all cases, where it appears upon the face of it, that the court has-no jurisdiction. The motion in this case must be rejected.
5 S.C.L. 407
Wells v. Reynolds
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided November 15, 1814
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1814-11-15
Tvv.o questions were made in this case : 1st. Whether a defendant in a summary process can avail himself of a set off, by way of defence, which is over the summary jurisdiction of the court ? 2d. If he cannot, whether he can at the trial relinquish a part of his demand, so as to reduce it within the summary jurisdiction,
Decided 1814-11-15