Newell v. . Barley

HoKE, J. Our Constitution, Art. IV, sec. 27, in express terms confers upon justices of tbe peace jurisdiction, “under such regulations as tbe General Assembly shall prescribe,” of civil action founded on contract, “wherein tbe sum demanded shall not exceed $200,” etc. Tbe statutes applicable, Rev., 1419, et seq., establish tbe regulations for tbe trial of *433 such actions before a justice and others specified in the constitutional provision. In construing these regulations, our Court has uniformly held that in action for breach of contract involving a claim for unliqui-dated damages, the jurisdiction and the amount demanded is determined as stated by the sum named on the summons.. And in other cases, though the sum demanded or really involved in the issue should be in excess of $200, the justice’s jurisdiction may be upheld when a remitter has been entered in apt time, as provided in Rev., 1421. Teal v. Templeton, 149 N. C., 32, and cases cited. ^he objection insisted on for defendant that this is an action for deceit and false warranty, constituting a tort, and which the jurisdictional amount for a justice’s court is restricted by the Constitution to $50, cannot be sustained. A perusal of the record showing that the suit is for breach of an express contract of warranty, instituted and maintained throughout as such by plaintiff, in which the amount demanded in the summons is $200. And though the elements of false warranty and deceit are also presented, this would not interfere with the prosecution of the present action, where the facts show that suit for breach of contract is maintainable. Stroud v. Ins. Co., 148 N. C., 54; Manning v. Fountain, 147 N. C., 18; Parker v. Express Co., 132 N. C., 128. We find no error in the record, and the judgment for the plaintiff is affirmed. No error.