
    St. Amand v. Gerry. A. J. Brown v. Same.
    A plaintiff cannot entitle liimself to an action, in a court of limited jurisdiction, by releasing tbe interest, where the principal and interest would exceed it. 
    
    Assumpsit upon notes, tried in the Inferior City Court.
    The report of the Recorder is, that “the plaintiffs in these cases, took verdicts for the principal sums due upon their causes of action, which were promissory notes, releasing their right to all interest. If the interest had been added, the verdicts would have exceeded the amount to which the Court had jurisdiction. I thought, under such circumstances, the plaintiffs might maintain their action ; that interest was recoverable by way of damages, which damages a plaintiff might not choose to exact, and that the release precluded any future cause of action for the recovery of the interest. A notice was served upon me, that new trials would be moved for, upon the ground that the plaintiff cannot abate interest on a note, to bring it within the jurisdiction of an inferior Court.”
    
      
      . (a) See Simpson v. McMillion, 1 Nott & McCord, 192, and note, a. R.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gantt, J.

In these eases the Court are of opinion that new trials should be granted.

A plaintiff cannot entitle himself to an action in a Gourt of limited jurisdiction, by releasing the interest, where the principal and interest would exceed it.

If payments are bona fide made, and the sum is so reduced, as not to exceed the amount for which jurisdiction can be sustained, then a plaintiff may proceed to recover such balance; but the rule has been otherwise with respect to a credit or a release, when done merely to bring the case within a limited jurisdiction. *To preserve, rt.^oa therefore, uniformity of decisions, new trials must be allowed in <- the above cases.

Nott, Bichaedson and Huger, JJ., concurred. 
      
       McC. 395 ; 3 Strob. 261.
     