Vannerson v. Staunton
Vannerson v. Staunton
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT — By the
This was a proceeding under the statute which authorises a summary method by distress for rent. The affidavit, which, is the leading process in this case, was taken before the city magistrate, upon which an attachment issued for the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars, returnable to the next term of the circuit court of Adams county,, the attachment]was levied on defendant’s property, and a replevy bond given by said defendant, at the said circuit court. The plaintiff by his'attorney, moved the court for judgment on the replevy bond, which was granted and judgment entered up accordingly for said amount, from which judgment, the defendant has appealed to this court. The first question raised for the consideration of this court is, whether the city magistrate, is, by virtue of his office, authorised to emanate a proceeding of this kind?
Secondly. It is contended that the motion in the court below should have been for execution, and not for judgment. The first section of the act of the legislature on the subject of distress for rent, states, that the oath shall be taken before any justice of the county court, or justice of the peace, for the county, &c. The city magistrate is confined to the limits pf the city, his is a court of limited jurisdiction, and although he is a.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- WM. VANNERSON v. ED. STAUNTON, Admr.
- Status
- Published