New York Supreme Court, 1800

Cahill v. Dolph

Cahill v. Dolph
New York Supreme Court · Decided April 15, 1800
1 Johns. Cas. 333

Counsel

Riggs, for the plaintiff in error,, Bowman, contra.

Cahill v. Dolph

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The joining a formal issue before a justice is not material. It is sufficient if it appear to have been substantially done, which is the case here.

As to the second objection, a justice has jurisdiction to the amount of 200 dollars, provided the balance claimed do not exceed 25 dollars. Regularly, the plaintiff ought to state in his declaration the credit to reduce it to that sum, which in the present case is not done, but he concludes to his damage of 25 dollars only. It is therefore an objection of form, and not a substantial error, for which the judgment below ought to be reversed.(a)

Judgment affirmed.

Tuttle v. Maston, supra 25. Stillson v. Sandford, 3 Caines R. 174.

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