Delamater v. Borland. took from the masters of both vessels their papers, against their opinion and consent, and put on board of them prize masters, ordering them for the United States, as prizes to his ship. That after parting from the ship United States, they were severally captured, the one carried into Halifax, and there acquitted on payment of costs; the other into Bermuda, and there condemned as good and lawful prize. Per Curiam. The conduct of Captain Barry was certainly not authorized by the request of Mr. Murphy. He acted however, with the best intentions; and his measures appear to me rather to have lessened than to have increased the risks. The acquittal of the one vessel was probably owing to them; for their papers, showing the property to be Danish, must have insured the condemnation of both. I can see no reason, therefore, why the underwriters should not be held to their responsibility, and am of opinion the verdicts are neither against law nor evidence. Judgment for the plaintiffs. DELAMATER against BORLAND. In a suit to recover a stake deposited on a wager, evidence of money due on a note of hand cannot be given. If the declaration be for ten dollars and the judgment for fifteen, it is fatal on error from a justice's court. IN error, on a certiorari, from a justice's court. The declaration was for ten dollars deposited in the hands of the defendant below as a stake on a wager. The evidence at the trial was of 25 dollars due on a note, upon which five had been paid, and the judgment was for fifteen dollars. Per Curiam. It appears that the plaintiff below declared for one thing, and gave evidence of another Delamater v. Borland. totally variant. *To this the defendant made an [*594] objection, which was overruled. In the next place, the declaration is for ten dollars, and the judgment for fifteen. Both errors are fatal, and there must be a reversal, with costs.(a) Judgment reversed. (a) The multiplicity of cases from the justices' courts will excuse the insertion of the following determination, by which it was decided that they have no jurisdiction under the joint debtor act. JONES AND CRAWFORD against REID. JANUARY TERM, 1799. Per Curiam. It is a clear and salutary principle that inferior jurisdictions, not proceeding according to the course of the common law, are confined strictly to the authority given them. They can take nothing by implication, but must show their power expressly given them in every instance. The sound rule of construction, in respect to justices' courts, is accordingly this to be liberal in reviewing their proceedings as far as respects regularity and form, and strict in holding them to the exact limits of jurisdiction prescribed to them by the statute. To apply these principles to the present case: The act making joint debtors answerable to their creditors separately and giving a new mode of proceeding, is posterior to the act granting civil jurisdiction to justices of the peace, and makes no mention of them. It directs that process shall issue against the joint debtors in the manner then in use, and if either be taken and brought into court, he shall answer. This act contemplates, in every instance, a compulsory process on which the defendant is taken and brought into court, and until that be done the court cannot proceed in the cause; whereas, the ten pound act, giving civil authority to justices, intends only a summons in the first instance against freeholders and inhabitants, having families, and if the summors was personally served, and the defendant does not appear, the justice cannot compel him, but is to proceed and try the cause without his either being taken or brought into court. The joint debtor act accordingly gives a power and jurisdiction different from and unknown to the ten pound act. So in respect to executions the joint debtor act directs that the execution shall be against all the debtors; but shall not, however, issue against the body or sole property of the one not taken and brought into court. Whereas, by the ten pound act, execution is directed to go against the entire goods and chattels of the person against whom it is granted, and for want of sufficient goods of such person, to take his body. Here are new powers and new modes of proceedings, applicable to the courts of common law, and contrary to the express forms and directions given to the justices' courts, and in which no mention is made of them. Delamater v. Borland. We are therefore of opinion that, according to the settled rules of interpretation, justices of the peace have no jurisdiction in the case of joint debtors, unless both are duly served with process, and, therefore, that the judgment in this case must be reversed.* *By the 18th section of the revised act, (Rev. L. N. Y. 509,) in cases of joint debtors where one is not served, jurisdiction is given to justices of the peace, similar to that exercised by the supreme court under the 13th section of the statute for the amendment of the law. PROMOTIONS IN THIS TERM. AMBROSE SPENCER, ESQ., as Judge, vice RADCLIFF, Judge, resigned. JOHN WOODWORTH, ESQ., Attorney-General, vice AMBROSE SPENCER, promoted. INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS. A ABANDONMENT. See INSURANCE, 3, 11, 15, 16, 21. ABSENT DEBTOR. 1. If an absent debtor's estate be, ACCOUNTABLE RECEIPT. See PROMISSORY NOTE, 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. See EJECTMENT, 1. ACT OF BANKRUPTCY. See BANKRUPT, 2. ACTS OF CONGRESS CONSTRU- cial intercourse between the United 3. An act for the valuation of lands 5. An act further to suspend the 6. An act to regulate the collection ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE 1. An act for regulating the build- 2. An act for supplying the city of 82 4. An act to establish a turnpike 5. An act to amend an act, entitled, 1. An act to suspend the commer- poration for improving the road from 6. An act to establish a turnpike 8. An act for the more speedy re- 67 11. An act for the sale and disposi- 185 ACTION. 1. Cause of action must exist be- fore suing out the writ. If it appear rence, 69 ADJUSTMENT. See INSURANCE, 2, 16. ADMINISTRATOR. PRACTICE, 32, 67; WITNESS, 3, 6. AGREEMENT. 1. An action will lie on an agree 2. An action is not maintainable See COMMISSIONS, 1; INSURANCE, 16; .NUE, 1. ACQUITTAL See INSURANCE, 16. 175 See AGENT, 1; CONTRACT; EVIDENCE, |