¶1 An objection to proceeding before the Clerk seems somewhat ungracious after the consent given to the order of the Judge of the Superior Court, remanding the case to him. That consent implied leave to make any formal amend- *469 merits necessary to give the Clerk jurisdiction, if any should be necessary. The objection touches merely a form. It is conceded that the Clerk has jurisdiction of the cause: it has been several times so decided, in this Court, Hunt v. Snead, 64 N. C., 176. But it ■ is said that the summons should have required the defendants to appear before the Clerk as Judge of the Court of Probate, and not as Clerk. If there had been a mistake merely in the title of the Court, producing no uncertainty as to what Court was intended, it might have been amended, and under the order by consent, must be regarded as having been amended. It would also have been waived by appearance and pleading. But there was no mistake. The Clerk of the Superior Court has by law a certain jurisdiction for the probate of deeds and wills, &c. But he is not styled in the Constitution, “ Probate Judge,” nor, so far as we know, is he directed to be so styled by any act of A ssembly. His probate jurisdiction is incident to his office of Clerk, and his legal style and title is “ Clerk of the Superior Court.” It is permissible to speak of him in pleadings, and in common speech as Probate Judge, provided no ambiguity or uncertainty results. The question whether consent can give jurisdiction to a Court does not occur. The action was properly brought; the Clerk had jurisdiction; and the action was never regularly removed from before him. When it appeared on the docket of the Judge of the Superior Court, he properly ordered it to be táken off, and remanded it to the Clerk. No consent was required for this. The judgment below is affirmed, and this opinion will be certified to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Alamance to the end that he proceed in the action according to law.
¶2 Per Curiaím:. Judgment affirmed.