Superior Court of Delaware, 1837

Carey v. Russel

Carey v. Russel
Superior Court of Delaware · Decided July 5, 1837
2 Del. 280

Counsel

C. G. Ridgely, for plaintiff in error. Brinckloe, for defendant in error.

Carey v. Russel

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

The principle is, that consent may take away error, but cannot confer jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of inferior tribunals must be construed strictly; it is conferred by statute and must be plainly embraced within the terms of the law. There is nothing in the act “ providing for the recovery of small debts,” authorizing the entry of an amicable action before justices of the peace, or authorizing the entry of judgments by them otherwise than in suits commenced according to the forms of that law and tried before them, or before referees of their appointment, or upon judgment notes. The principle of this case was decided in Morrison vs. The Wilmington & Kennet Turnpike Company. 1 Harr. Rep. 366.

Judgment reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.