37 Ill. 428 (Ill. 1865), Miller v. McCray

Citation:37 Ill. 428
Opinion Judge:Mr. JUSTICE LAWRENCE.
Party Name:ROBERT MILLER, Administrator, v. BENJAMIN F. MCCRAY
Attorney:Mr. A. E. HARDING and Mr. L. E. PAYSON for the plaintiff in error. Mr. J. M. BARRET for the defendant in error.
Court:Supreme Court of Illinois
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 428

37 Ill. 428 (Ill. 1865)

ROBERT MILLER, Administrator,

v.

BENJAMIN F. MCCRAY

Supreme Court of Illinois, Third Grand Division

April, 1865

Page 429

WRIT OF ERROR to the County Court of Livingston county; the Hon. JONATHAN DUFF, Judge, presiding.

This suit was originally instituted before a justice of the peace in Livingston county, by Robert Miller, administrator of the estate of William S. Malone, deceased, against Benjamin F. McCray, to recover a sum "not exceeding one hundred dollars."

The cause was removed into the County Court by appeal, where the defendant appeared and entered his motion to dismiss the suit upon the ground that the justice of the peace who rendered the judgment from which the appeal was taken, had no jurisdiction in the case, because the plaintiff sued as an administrator, and the amount claimed exceeded twenty dollars. The court sustained the motion and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff thereupon sued out this writ of error, and now insists that the ruling of the County Court in sustaining the motion was erroneous.

Judgment reversed.

Mr. A. E. HARDING and Mr. L. E. PAYSON for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. J. M. BARRET for the defendant in error.

OPINION

Mr. JUSTICE LAWRENCE.

Page 430

The only question presented by this record is, whether justices of the peace have jurisdiction in suits brought by administrators against a person not an executor or administrator, where the amount claimed does not exceed one hundred dollars. The 10th clause of the 17th section of the act in regard to justices of the peace gives jurisdiction "in all actions in which an executor or administrator is plaintiff, or for property purchased at an executors or administrators' sale, where the amount claimed does not exceed one hundred dollars." We do not see how, under this clause, the jurisdiction can be questioned. Language could hardly be more explicit. The case of Williams v. Blankenship, 12 Ill. 122, quoted by the counsel...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP