
    SEPTEMBER, TERM, 1785.
    Geyger v. Stoy.
    
      Habeas corpus.
    
    One who had been committed under an execution by a justice of the peace, for a sum beyond his jurisdiction, was discharged by the court on habeas aorpm.
    
    The defendant was brought before the court on a habeas corpus, and the return stated, that he was committed in execution, by the warrant of a justice of the peace, for a debt of 10Í. 6s. 3ci.
    
    
      Sergeant moved, that he should be discharged, on this principle, that although the errors of a. justice, while he keeps within his jurisdiction, are binding, until his judgment is reversed ; yet, where he exceeds his jurisdiction, all his acts are, in themselves, merely null and void.
   By the Court.

It appearing upon the face of the record, that the justice has exceeded his jurisdiction, by giving judgment, and issuing an execution, for a greater sum than ten pounds, we cannot but consider, the whole as a nullity; and, for that reason alone, discharge the defendant, 
      
      
        а) Where a justice keeps within his jurisdiction, however, his judgment is conclusive upon the parties, unless reversed on certiorari or appeal. Emery v. Nelson, 9 S. & R. 12.
     