#### Andrew Maurer, Appellant, v. John Derrick, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM CLINTON.

Although the accounts of the plaintiff may originally have amounted to more than 100 dollars, yet, if the defendant admits a balance to be due to plaintiff of less than 100 dollars, and promises to pay it, a justice of the peace has jurisdiction.

Opinion of the Court by

Justice Lockwood.

This action was originally commenced before a justice of the peace and brought into the circuit court of the county of Clinton, by certiorari. On the hearing of the cause the circuit court decided that the judgment below should be reversed, because the justice of the peace had not jurisdiction of the cause. The action before the justice was commenced on a contract or account, specified as follows, to wit:

“ John Derrick,

To Andrew Maurer, Dr.

March 4, ) To 67 dollars which you owed to me—and 1826. j specially promised to pay.”

This debt was acknowledged to be due on account of horses before that time by said Maurer, sold to said Derrick. On the trial in the circuit court, it was proved that the defendant had promised to pay plaintiff sixty-four dollars. It further appeared in evidence that the promise of defendant was made in consideration of a note held by plaintiff against defendant, for upwards of 100 dollars, and that the note had subsequently came to the hands of defendant without payment in full, leaving a balance of sixty-four dollars.

A jury impanneled in the circuit court brought in a verdict for plaintiff for that amount. The circuit court granted a new trial, because the justice had not jurisdiction, and then gave judgment for defendant. The question is, whether the justice had jurisdiction. The only case decided in this court, on this subject, is the case of Clark v. Cornelius, page 46. In *198that cause, the plaintiff exhibited a charge before the justice of 176 dollars, and admitted a credit of seventy-seven dollars, and this court decided that the justice had not jurisdiction. The present case is, however, different. The plaintiff here sues on a balance acknowledged to be due, and the proof supports the assumpsit. There was no necessity for the justice to investigate the accounts of the plaintiff beyond the specific sum acknowledged to be due, and which the defendant, upon sufficient consideration, promised to pay. The statute giving the justice jurisdiction, is, that he shall have it “ over all debts and demands not exceeding 100 dollars, where the amount or balance is claimed to be due, on any contract, specialty, note or agreement, or for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered, or for work or labor done, or on account of any sums of money not exceeding 100 dollars.” The court are of opinion that the justice had jurisdiction in this case. The judgment below must be reversed. (1)

Cowles, for appellant.

Blackwell, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

(1)

See note to Clark v. Cornelius, ante, p. 46.