
    BAIRD versus NICHOLS.
    The balance of an open account, (originally for more than fifty dollars, but reduced below that amount by credits, )is recoverable before a Justice’s Court,
    Baird commenced proceedings, by warrant, before a Justice of the Peace in Tuskaloosa county, to recover the balance, of an open aocount, alleged to be due by the defendant, Nichols. The magistrate, on the trial, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, for seventeen dollars and twenty two cents, with which he being dissatisfied, removed the case by cer-tiorari, into the Circuit Court.
    It appeared that the account, had, originally been for the supi of one hundred and/,sixty six dollars and sixteen cents, but was reduced by credits, (all admitted by the defendant) to the sum of forty nine doh iars one cent, which the plaintiff claimed. The Court below decided, and so charged, that the original demand having been for more than fifty dollars, the Justice of the Peace had no jurisdiction, but that the account should have been sued in the Circuit or County Court. On this decision there was a judgment in favor of the defendant-, and Baird, by bill of except Urns brought the rase .into this Court.
    
      Stewart, for Plaintiff
    Ellis, contra.
    
   By Mr. Justice Thornon :

This was a trial in the Circuit Court of Tuska-loosa county, of a case brought before it by certiorari, from a Justice of the Peace. The statement of the plaintiff was, that the defendant owed him fifty dollars, for work and labor done, &c. at his, the defendant’s special instance and request; and upon non-assumpsit plead, an issue was joined. A bill of exceptions was signed at the trial, on which error is assigned in this Court. Upon an examination of the bill of exceptions, it is apparent to my mind, that the only question which could have arisen, was, whether the balance of an account for services rendered, reduced below fifty dollars, by credits, could be recovered by warrant from a Justice of the Peace; and not,, whether a warrant would lie for the breach of a contract to perform service, of greater value than fifty dollars. With reference to the question first mentioned, which alone grew out of the testimony stated, the Court charged the jury, that as the amount of the account for service performed, was originally more than fifty dollars, the plaintiff ought not to recover, even though by credits, which he offered to prove, the amount had been reduced below that sum. Now, that question had been differently settled by the decision of this Court, in the case of King and Dougherty; upon the authority of which, this judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      
       2 Stew't, 487.
     