
    Hay vs. Lea.
    A note or instrument under seal, before or after its assignment, is not barred by the act of 1786, eh. 4, sec. 5, or any other act of limitations in' force in this State.
    The act of 1S31, ch. 59, sec. 2, gives jurisdiction to justices of the peace to render judgments upon notes and bonds to the amount of one' hundred dollars, whether the bond or note is to pay money or property.
    This suit was commenced before a justice of the peace, the 4th day of April, 1S34, upon the following note:
    “Six months after date, I promise to pay Austin Miller fifty dollars, for value received, Nov. 28 th, 1827, which maybe discharged in property before that time.
    John Hays. [Seal.]”
    Miller assigned the note to Ar&os Johnson, on the 1st day of May, 1828, who assigned it to Lea, the plaintiff below. The justice rendered a judgment for the plaintiff, Lea, which was affirmed in the circuit court.
    
      V. D. Barry, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      B. R. Belcher, for defendants in error.
   Creen J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

Two questions are raised by the counsel in this case. The first is, whether the act of 1786, ch. 4, sec. 5, is a bar lo the action; and second, whether this is a contract in which the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace extends beyond fifty dollars.

As to the first question, this court decided in the case of Lawrence vs. Biedleman, (7 Yer. Rep.) that neither the act of 1786, nor any other act of limitations in this State, applied to such a case as the present.

It is unnecessary to consider the question of jurisdiction, as it existed prior to the passage of the act of 1831, ch. 69, sec. 2 That act, confers on a justice, jurisdiction to the amount of one hundred dollar’s, due by note, whether tor money or trade.

There is, therefore, no error in the judgment of the court below, which will be affirmed.  