Cumberland County NcArchives Court.....Commissioners, Vs. Whitaker 1811-18
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 12, 2008, 11:15 pm

Source: North Carolina Reports
Written: 1811-18

July Term 1812.


COMMISSIONERS OF THE BRIDGE AT TARBORO v. JOHN WHITAKER.

From Edgecombe.

An appeal lies from the judgment of a justice of the peace to the County 
Court, and then from the judgment of that court to the Superior Court. The act 
of 1777, ch. 2, made the judgment of the County Court, in cases of appeal from 
the judgment of justices of the peace, final. The act of 1786, ch. 14, 
declared the judgment of the County Court, in such cases, decisive; but the 
act of 1794, ch. 13, gave the right of appeal from the judgment of a justice, 
in general terms, and repealed all other acts which came within its purview; 
and by the act of 1802, ch. 1, the right of appeal from the judgment of a 
justice is given to either party.

This suit was commenced by warrant before a justice of the peace, from whose 
decision an appeal was taken to the County Court, where it was again decided, 
and an appeal prayed for and granted to the Superior Court; and the counsel 
for the plaintiffs moved that court to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground 
that the judgment of the County Court was decisive, and that no appeal lay 
from it. This motion was disallowed, and the plaintiffs appealed to this Court.

Hall, J. The act of 1777, ch. 2, sec. 69, declares that "all debts and demands 
of £5 and under shall be cognizable and determinable by any one justice of the 
peace." The next section gives to either party a right to appeal to the next 
County Court, and directs that the same shall be reheard and finally 
determined by that court. The next act on the subject which it is necessary to 
notice is the act of 1786, ch. 14. By this act the jurisdiction of justices, 
out of court, is increased to £20, and the right of appeal to the County Court 
is given to either party, "which appeal shall be tried and determined by a 
jury of good and lawful men, and the determination thereon shall be decisive." 
The act of 1794, ch. 13, brings into view and consolidates all that is to be 
found in the previous acts relative to the recovery of debts of £20 and under. 
This act gives to either party, in general terms, the right of appeal to the 
County Court, and repeals all other acts coming within its purview. The act of 
1802, ch. 6, professes to have been passed for the purpose of amending the act 
of 1794, ch. 13, by increasing the jurisdiction of a justice to £25. The last 
act necessary to be noticed is that of 1803, ch. 1, by which this jurisdiction 
is extended to £30, and the right of appeal reserved to either party.

It is understood that the Superior Courts have sustained appeals from 
judgments given by the County Court upon appeals from judgments given by 
justices out of court, ever since the act of 1777, ch. 2, was passed. Whatever 
doubts may be entertained of the legality of these decisions, on account of 
the restrictive words used in the acts of 1777 and 1786, it is not necessary 
to attempt to remove. The former of those acts declares that such appeals to 
the County Court from the judgments of justices of the peace shall be finally 
determined by those courts; the latter act declares that "their determination 
shall be decisive." But in the act of 1794 there are no such expressions. In 
that act and in those of 1802 and 1803, which were passed for the purpose of 
increasing the jurisdiction of justices, an appeal is given to the county 
courts, without declaring that their judgment shall be final or decisive. And 
this omission might have been the result of a conviction in the Legislature 
that an appeal to the Superior Court would be proper, because the jurisdiction 
of justices had been greatly increased beyond the limit fixed by the act of 
1777, ch. 2. Section 82 of this act declares that when either plaintiff or 
defendant shall be dissatisfied with any sentence, judgment or decree of the 
County Court, he may pray an appeal to the Superior Court. This is a very 
general expression. Now, if the restrictive words used in the acts of 1777 and 
1786 are considered to be repealed by subsequent acts passed on the same 
subject, it seems there can be no obstacle in the way of an appeal to the 
Superior Court in the present instance. It is certainly such a judgment as 
would be embraced by that part of the act of 1777 just recited. Judgment for 
the plaintiff for his debt, and for the defendant upon the motion to dismiss 
the appeal.

Additional Comments:
North Caroline Reports, Vol. 6, Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme 
Court of North Carolina, Reported by A.D. Murphey, Annotated by Walter Clark. 
1811 to 1813, Inclusive and at July Term, 1818. Reprinted by the State. E.M. 
Uzzell and Company, State printers and binders, 1910.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/cumberland/court/commissi543gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ncfiles/

File size: 5.3 Kb