Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
September Term, 1785.
The defendant was brought before the Court on a Hab. Corp. and the return stated, that he was committed in execution by the warrant of a Justice of the peace for a debt of £10, 6, 3.
Sergeant moved that he should be discharged, on this principle, that although the errors of a Justice, while he keeps within his jurisdiction, are binding, 'till this judgment is reversed; yet where he exceeds his jurisdiction, all his acts are, in themselves, merely null and void.
By the Court.—It appearing upon the face of the record, that the justice has exceeded his jurisdiction, by giving judgment, and issuing an execution, for a greater sum than ten pounds, we cannot but consider the whole as a nullity; and, for that reason alone, discharge the defendant.
Citation: Geyger v. Stoy, 1 Dall. 135, 1 U.S. 135 (Pa. 1785)
These causes were marked for trial this day. Lewis for the defendant tendered the affidavit of Mason, the defendant in the first action, of the absence of a material witness. Bradford, for the plaintiff, desired, on the authority of the Chev. D. Eon's case 1 U.S. 135, 136 3 Burr. 1514, that the Court would enquire what would be the testimony of the absent witness, in order that it might appear whether he was really material.
But this Court refused, and ordered the cause to be continued.
Bradford then moved, that the action against Keely should be tried; insisting that the affidavit of any person, but the defendant himself, was insufficient to delay a trial; and he cited Barn. 437. Carter vs Uppington and Gray vs Holton.
But it appearing to the Court, that both actions, were brought on one note of hand, in which Mason was the drawer, and Keely the indorser, and, consequently, that Mason was liable over to Keely, he was considered as eventually interested in both actions; and therefore both the trials were postponed on his affidavit alone.
Citation: Jackson v. Mason, 1 Dall. 135, 1 U.S. 135 (Pa. 1785)
Last modified: January 14, 2014