
    CAROLINE COLEMAN vs. BARBARA FREEDMAN.
    At Law.
    No. 11,896.
    I. The writ of certiorari lies from the supreme court of the District of Columbia to justices of the peace in civil actions before judgment, in all cases where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of fifty dollars.
    II. This court has jurisdiction concurrently with j ustices of the peace when the claim or demand exceeds the sum of fifty dollars, and as there is no provision for the removal of such cases from said justices by appeal into this court after a jury trial, the proper course is to bring them here by certiorari to be tried in the first instance.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
    The plaintiff makes a motion to quash the writ of certiorari on the ground that it has been improperly awarded in this case-The defendant alleges in her petition -for the writ that the plaintiff has caused a summons to be issued by one Simon Joseph, a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia, against her to recover the sum of $61.65, which the plaintiff alleges to be due her from the said petitioner. The petitioner then represents that this court has concurrent jurisdiction in all suits with justices of the peace wherein the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $50, and that she is entitled by law to elect whether she will be sued in this court, or before said justice of the peace; that she has signified to said justice her election to be sued in this court, and has requested him to certify the said suit to this court, but that he refuses to do so, and that he intends to proceed in said cause. She therefore prays that the writ may issue, and that the cause be heard and determined here.
    The motion to quash was certified to be heard at the general term in the first instance, and the point presented is whether, under the circumstances stated, certiorari can issue from this court in a civil action before judgment to a justice of the peace. A reference to the statutes as to the j urisdiction of these inferior tribunals becomes necessary.
    
      By the act of February 27,1801, section 11, 2 Statutes, 107, justices of tbe peace had civil jurisdiction to the value of twenty dollars, which was enlarged by the first section of the act of March 1, 1823, to fifty dollars. And the sixth section enacts that the judges of the circuit court of the District of Columbia shall not hold original plea in said court in cases within the jurisdiction given to justices by that act, making their jurisdiction up to fifty dollars exclusive. The seventh section provides for an appeal to the circuit court where the debt exceeds five dollars by either party who is aggrieved by the judgment of a justice of the peace, and the thirteenth section provides that after issue joined where the sum demanded exceeds twenty dollars, either of the parties to the suit may demand that the action be tried by a jury, but there is no provision for an appeal, after a jury trial, to this court.
    The civil jurisdiction of justices of tbe peace was again enlarged by the act of February 22, 1887, to cases where the amount claimed does not exceed one hundred dollars, and this is the law, still in force, but the jurisdiction of this court is not interdicted, except as provided in the sixth section of the act of March, 1823, already mentioned, so that in all cases w'here the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of fifty dollars the jurisdiction of this court remains.
    
      R. Ross Perry, for petitioner,
    contended that, as this court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter, it may issue a certiorari to an inferior court having cognizance of the same cause of action, and if the plaintiff proceeds in the inferior one the defendant may have a certiorari to bring the cause here to be decided ; that the demand claimed in this case exceeded the sum of fifty dollars, and it was the right of petitioner to have the action to be tried by a jury, and in case of an illegal verdict there was no mode by which she could obtain redress by an appeal to a superior court; that this is the well-established practice, and cited the following authorities : Cross vs. Smith, Ld. Raymond, 836; Evans Pr., 500; Tidd Pr., 397 ; 7 Modern, 138.
    
      L. G. Hine, for the plaintiff,
    discussed the bearing of the statutes already cited.
   By the Court:

Upon the direct authorities cited by the counsel for petitioner sustaining such a use of the writ, the court were all of the opinion that it will lie in this case. And as there is no provision for the removal of cases after a jury-trial by appeal into this court, the proper course is to bring' it here by certiorari when the amount in controversy is evidently within the jurisdiction of the court.

Motion to quash denied.  