
    N. Varney vs. J. H. Bosch. The Same vs. The Same.
    
      Statement. — These were two cases tried before a magistrate. The plaintiff claimed the sum of $20, in each, as for one month’s rent, due under a certain agreement of lease, in writing. The magistrate decreed in favor of the plaintiff, for the sum of $20, in each case. The defendant appealed to the city recorder. The report of the magistrate to that court being identically the same in both cases, it is thought sufficient to insert his report in either case 5 which was as follows:
    “ The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for $20, for one month’s rent of a house in Elliott street, due by agreement of lease, in writing, and contracted to be paid, monthly, in advance The hand writing of defendant to lease, was proved. Defendant stated something in defence, about plaintiff’s having ordered him to give up the premises, but no proof was offered. 1 decreed for plaintiff $20. Defendant gave notice.of appeal, but furnished me with no grounds.
    (Signed,) ROBERT ELFE, Q. 17.
    Tried 5th January, lb37.”
    The case was heard on appeal, before the honorable the recorder of the city, when the counsel for the appellant insisted, that the appeal should be sustained, on the ground of there being more than $20 due, to wit, one day’s interest at the time of suit brought in the magistrate’s court. Alter hearing the case, the recorder indorsed on back of magistrate’s report:
    “ Appeal sustained, on the ground, that the amount sued for, exceeded the jurisdiction of a magistrate. .
    (Signed,) JACOB AXSON, Recorder.”
    
    
      Grounds of Appeal.
    
    1st. That the amount sued for was $20 only, and, therefore, clearly within the jurisdiction of the magistrate.
    2d. That whether interest was, or was not, due; on the contract in this case, was a question that could not be made in the first instance, except before the magistrate who tried the cause, and that plaintiff not having claimed it, and defendant not having set it up as a ground of defence at the trial in these cases, both parties are now concluded on that point.
    3d. That there is nothing in the law to prevent a creditor suing before a magistrate for debt to the amount of $20, although the indebtedness may exceed that amount, provided the creditor claimed only to the extent of $20, as his full satisfaction upon the particular contract.
    4th. That a creditor by suing for,-and recovering, his principal debt, without interest, must be held to have released it, which he has a clear right to do ; and that if the principal does not exceed $20, in such a case, he may sue for it before a magistrate, and recover.
    WM. RICE, for Appellant.
    
   Mr. Justice 0’Neax.l

delivered the opinion of the court.

From the reports of the magistrate, it does not appear when the pent was due; for aught that appears, the suits might have bcen brought on the instant that it was payable. The rule is clear, that where nothing appears on the face of the proceedings to shew the want of jurisdiction, and the objection is not made in the court below, it cannot be taken in the court above. This would be enough for the purposes of these cases. But if it be conceded that the ient had been due one or two days, the plaintiff had the right to treat the defendant’s contract as without the accrual of interest. The interest then due was incapable of reception, on account of its minuteness, and hence on the maxim, “ de minimis non curat lex,” the plaintiff might legally disregard it. In such a case as the present, I do not think the cases decided in relation to the process jurisdiction, have any application ; there, the attempt was made by releasing a substantial part of the demand, to give jurisdiction, which the court held could not be done. Here, as soon as the rent is due, a suit is instituted for its recovery, disregarding the interest on the rent, which was less than the smallest coin, or denomination of money, in circulation.

Wit, Rice, for Appellant.

Richard Yeadon, for Appellee.

Filed 20th February, 1837.

The motion to reverse the recorder’s decision, and to affirm the judgments of the magistrate, is granted.

JOHN B. O’NEALL,

We concur,

RICHARD GANTT;

.TOSIAII J. EVANS,

J. S RICHARDSON,

A. P. BUTLER.  