Bartlett v. Mudgett
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff, Daniel E. Bartlett, brought his action •against James W. Mudgett in the justice’s court in Cattaraugus County, and claimed in his complaint as his first cause of action that the defendant was indebted to him for work and services in pressing into bales 280 tons of hay, at the agreed price of $1.75 a ton, and that there became due to him therefor $490 ; that the defendant had not paid any part thereof, except the sum of $300, and that there remained due on…
Read the full summary
The plaintiff, Daniel E. Bartlett, brought his action •against James W. Mudgett in the justice’s court in Cattaraugus County, and claimed in his complaint as his first cause of action that the defendant was indebted to him for work and services in pressing into bales 280 tons of hay, at the agreed price of $1.75 a ton, and that there became due to him therefor $490 ; that the defendant had not paid any part thereof, except the sum of $300, and that there remained due on account thereof the sum of $190. For his second cause of action he alleged that the defendant was indebted to him in the sum…
1Opinion of the Court
Lewis, J. [after stating the facts.]
The justice unquestionably erred in dismissing the action, as it will be seen by an examination of the pleadings that the sum total of the accounts of both parties in dispute did not exceed $400; they, in fact, amounted to just $295.04. The justice had no authority to dismiss-the action until it was made to appear to him by proof that the amounts in dispute exceeded his jurisdiction.
It is provided by subdivision 4 of § 2863 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that “where, in a matter of account, the sum total of the accounts of both parties, proved to the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Oakley v. . AspinwallNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Clyde & Rose Plank Road Co. v. ParkerNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Parker v. Eaton & SoursNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Bailey v. StoneNew York Supreme Court · 1871