Smith v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 30 June 1825
• Citation: 10 N.C. 595
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: SMITH v. CAMPBELL.—From Halifax.

10 N.C. 595

SMITH

v.CAMPBELL.—From Halifax.

SUPREME COURT of NORTH CAROLINA

JUNE TERM, 1825

The acts enlarging the jurisdiction of justices of the peace do not violate the fourth article of the Bill of Rights.

This was a suit originally commenced by warrant on a note for $25, and the only question presented on the appeal of the defendant was on the constitutionality of acts of the General Assembly which give to a single individual the right to decide "a controversy at law."

HENDERSON, J. The warrant commands the defendant toappear at the suit of the plaintiff before a single justice of the peace (a court without a jury) to answer him for the nonpayment of a debt of $25. The case, therfore, depends on the question, Is this a controversy respecting property according to the meaning of those words as used in section 14 of the Declaration of Rights? That section declares that in all controversies at law respecting property the ancient mode of trial by jury is one of the best securities of the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable. At the time this declaration was made,

and long before, a single justice of the peace, out of doors, a court similar to the one before which this defendant is called in all respects except as to the sum over which it has jurisdiction, had cognizance of all demands arising upon contracts to a very small amount. This jurisdiction has, from time to time, been much enlarged as to the sum over which the justice's court has cognizance; it adjudicated without the aid of a jury. From the phraseology of the section I think it is plainthat, in the opinion of the authors of the declaration, a controversy respecting a debt was not a controversy respecting property; that a debt was not property; for if it was, they would not have used the words remain sacred and inviolable; to remain, to be, to continue as it is. The word "remain" supposes a present state of things, which is to continue; and if in all trials at law respecting property there must be a jury, the principle is as much violated when one cent is the subject of controversy as when $10,000 are. Nor can the words be at all satisfied by permitting the jurisdiction to remain as it then stood; that is, not to increase the amount; for the words are, "all controversies at law respecting property," not "all controversies to a certain amount." But I think there can be no doubt when the other parts of the section are considered. The words respecting property are restrictive of the words, "all controversies." What controversies are without the restriction? Criminal prosecutions? They could not be intended, for they are provided for by section 9. Besides controversies respecting property there are but two others: controversies respecting debts or duties, and controversies respecting rights. If they are included under the description respecting property, then these words...