« PreviousContinue »
PAGE Southern Express Com- Taylor v. Allen,
346 pany, Froelick v.
4 || Teague, Ogburn v. 355 Spicer v. Fulghum, 18 Tiddy, Exchange Bank of State v Bray,
169 State v. Brown, 470 Towe v. Towe,
298 State v. Brown, ,
435 Tresevant, Phillips v., 370 State v. Brown,
475 Turner, Goldsborongh v., 403 State v. Davidson, 119 State v. Ferguson, 219 Ward, Jarman v.,
33 State v. Haney,
467 Watson v. Shields, 235 State v. Howard, 24 West v. Shaw,
483 State v. Jones,
211 Westcott v. Hewlett, 191
285 Western N.C.R. R. Co., State v. Ledford,
278 State v. Johnson,
55 | White, Morrison V., 253 State v. Mercer,
266 Whittemnore, Hoyle v., 252 State v. Peebles,
97 Wilcoxon v. Calloway & State v. Purdie, 26 Calvert,
463 State v. Purdie,
326 Williams v. Monroe, 133 State v. Sloan,
357 Williams v. Monroe, 164 State v. Williams & Williams & Avery, State Avery, 12
12 State v. Wilson,
456 Willoughby, Robinson v., 84 State v. Wise, 281 Wilson, State v.
456 State v. Woodruff, 89 Wise, State v.
281 Stilley v. Rice,
178 Woodley v. Gilliam, 237 Stokes v. Howerton,
89 Stoltz, Pegram v.
144 | Wright v. McCormick, 27 Suddreth v. McCombs, 353 Synons, Hutchinson v., 156 Young v. Lathrop, 63
APPLICANTS FOR LICENSE.
Applicants for license are expected to have read : For first course Blackstone's Commentaries, (2nd book diligently,) Coke or Cruise, Fearne, Saunders on uses, and some work on Executors and Administrators.
Second course : 3rd Blackstone's Commentaries, Chitty & Stephens on Pleading, Adams Equity, and the Code of Civil Procedure.
ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE
Supreme Court of North Carolina,
JUNE TERM, 1872.
LOCIS FRCELICH vs. THE SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY.
Where the complaint alleged that the plaintiff had delivered to the
defendant, an Express Company, an article valued at less than two hundred doilars, and then averred the loss of it by negligence, and demanded a judgment for a sum over two hundred dollars, it was helil that the claim was founded upon a contract for less than two hundred dollars, and that, therefore, the Superior Court had no jurisdiction of
the case. When the claim is founded on a contract for less than two hundred dol.
lars, the Superior Court has no jurisdiction of it, though it may be a case in which the plaintiff might formerly have sued in tort, and though
the damages may be uncertain. When it appears upon the complaint that the claim is founded on a con
tract for less than two hundred dollars, an objection to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court may be taken in the Supreme Court, though it appears from the pleadings in the former Court that the objection was not intended to be taken in that Court.
This was a civil action tried at the Superior Court of DUPLin County, at the Fall Term, 1871, before his Honor Russell, J.
The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he delivered to the agent of the defendant, for transportation to Hartford,