Brantley v. . Finch

Me-rrijioN, J,, (after stating the facts). We are of opinion that the justice of the peace had jurisdiction. It is the sum demanded in an action on contract that determines the question in that respect. Froelich v. Express Co., (57 N. C., 1; Wiseman v. Withrow, 90 N. C., 140; Noville v. Dew, 94 N. C., 43. The plaintiff did not demand by the summons, nor insist on the trial, that the intestate of the defendant, in his life-time, owed him a greater sum than two hundred dollars, and the justice of the peace had jurisdiction of that sum. The “ account ” stated and exhibited on the trial, was a mere memorandum — it was not evidence of indebtedness— it did not determine or fix the plaintiff's demand, nor the *94 liability of the defendant. He might- — -it seems he did— change his opinion in respect to the value of his alleged services rendered, and the jury found by their verdict that they were not worth the sum he demanded. It is only when the principal sum demanded exceeds two hundred dollars, that the plaintiff shall remit the excess of principal above that, in order to give the justice of the peace jurisdiction, as prescribed and allowed by the statute, (The Code, §835). The plaintiff did not need to remit any part of his claim, because it amounted to only two hundred dollars, and he recovered less than that sum. The judgment must be affirmed. No error. Affirmed.