
    Alberty against Dawson.
    
      Wednesday, September 12th.
    A justice of the peace cannot enter a judgment upon a warrant of attorney. He must proceed by warrant in the nature of a summons or capias.
    In Error.
    THIS was a certiorari to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county. The cause originated before a justice of the peace, who gave judgment for Dawson the plaintiff below, upon a warrant of attorney, without issuing either summons or capias. This judgment was affirmed in the Common Pleas, and upon the removal to this court the proceeding without summons or capias was assigned for error.
    
      M. Levy for the plaintiff in error,
    cited the act of April 19th, 1/94, which follows the act of March 1st, 1/45. sec. 1. empowering* justices 44 upon complaint made to them for a debt or dei4 mand to' issue a warrant in the nature of a summons or ca- “ pías as ¿he case may require;” but it gives them no authority t0 take jurisdiction in any other way. 
    
    
      Ross contra,
    said that the section did not contain negative words, and. that if the justice had jurisdiction of the amount, a warrant of attorney from the party waived the benefit of the ordinary proceeding. Though consent cannot give jurisdiction it may waive process.
    
      
      
         Vide Act April 9th, 1807. sec. 8. S. St. Laws 180.
    
   Shippen C. J.

A limited authority, such as. is given to justices of the peace, must be strictly pursued. They cannot interfere officially in a civil controversy without pursuing the steps pointed out by the act.

Smith J.

It has always been held that if the proceeding was neither by summons nor capias, it ivas irregular.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.  