
    The Canal-boat Housatonic v. The Kanawha Salt Company
    The Tth section of the water-craft law, relating to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, is in foil force, and their jurisdiction thereby limited to one hundred dollars.
    
      This is a petition in error to reverse the judgment.of the court of common pleas of Boss county. The original action was brought by the defendant in error in October, 1854, before a justice of the peace in Boss county, against the canal-boat Housatonic *by name, under the act of February 26, 1840, relating to common carriers, to recover the sum of $188, with interest from October 13, 1854, as damages for an alleged breach of contract between the parties, for the transportation, by the canal-boat, of 283 barrels of salt from Zanesville, Ohio, to Chillicothe, Ohio. It appears that the boat, shortly after leaving Zanesville on her way to Chillicothe, was sunk in the Muskingum river, and 83 barrels of the salt destroyed.
    As soon as the action was commenced before the magistrate, the Housatonic, by counsel, moved that he dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss was overruled by the justice, and judgment rendered against the boat for $188, and costs. The boat appealed from this judgment to the common pleas of Boss county. Shortly after perfecting the appeal and filing the transcript in the common pleas, and before a petition was filed by defendant in error, the canal-boat filed its motion in the common pleas to dismiss the action for want of original jurisdiction in the justice, and appellate jurisdiction in the common pleas. This motion to dismiss in the common pleas was overruled by that court, and the plaintiff in error excepted. Afterward the defendant in error-filed a petition in the common pleas, and the plaintiff in error filed an answer thereto, setting up in the answer, as one of its defenses, the want of jurisdiction aforesaid. The defense was again overruled on the trial of the case, and judgment rendered by the common pleas against the boat for the full amount of the claim.
    The first six sections of the carrier act prescribe proceedings in, and confer jurisdiction upon, the higher courts of the state. The seventh section enacts, that “justices of the peace, within their townships, shall have jurisdiction under this act, when the amount claimed shall not exceed one hundred dollars, and shall proceed as near as may be, according to the rules prescribed herein for other courts.” This act was passed February 26, 1840. Swan’s Bev. Stat. 185.
    The law relating to the jurisdiction, generally, of justices of the peace, and prescribing the practice, provides, by the first section of the act of 1854 (the section claimed as amending or *repealing the 7th section above quoted), that section 4 of the justices’ code, shall be so amended as to read as follows: “ See. 4. Under the restrictions and -limitations herein provided, justices of the peace shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of any sum not exceeding one hundred dollars, and concurrent jurisdiction with the court of common pleas, in any sum over one hundred dollars, and not exceeding three hundred dollars.” A section (the 5th) follows this, repealing the original fourth section. Swan’s Rev. Stat. 533.
    The overruling the objection to the jurisdiction is assigned for error.
    
      Clark & Cooke, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Yaple & Wallace, for defendant in error.
   J. R. Swan, J.

The jurisdiction of a justice of the peace under the water-craft law, is derived from the express provisions of that law, and not from the general law relating to jurisdiction and to common-law actions. The proceedings under the water-craft law are special in their nature, being in rem, and spend all their force upon the property against which the suit is brought.

The repeal of the general law of 1831, relating to the jurisdiction of justices, could not and did not affect the jurisdiction of justices under the water-craft law; and the substitution of another code, in place of that general law, could not, by implication, repeal or modify the seventh section of the water-craft law, inasmuch as there is no conflict or inconsistency in justices being clothed with jurisdiction in cases where an action is brought to recover an indebtedness of three hundred dollars; and limiting their jurisdiction to a different amount in cases of replevin (Swan’s Rev. Stat. 520, sec. 139), trespass (Ib. 501, sec. 4), actions on certain undertakings (Ib. 502, sec. 6), and in suits against water-craft.

In an action to subject a steamboat or canal-boat to sale for debts of one hundred dollars or less, in general, the debts would be paid without a sale; but for debts of three hundred dollars *and less, frequent sales would probably be made; and justices of the peace would be called upon to exercise jurisdiction in the nature of admiralty, and to condemn, and, upon notice in the township, cause to be sold property worth ma.ny thousand dollars. The subject-matter of the proceedings, and the importance of the interests involved, would seem to as urgently require a limitation upon jurisdiction in such cases, as in an action of replevin, involving the ownership of personal property, or an action of trespass, involving an injury to real estate. There is nothing, therefore, in the nature of the subject that would demand, by construction, an implied repeal or amendment of the water-craft law. The justices’ code relates to general jurisdiction and practice.

The water-craft law directs a special proceeding and a peculiar remedy, and itself confers and limits jurisdiction. Without bringing the constitutional provision relating to the repeal of amendatory laws (Const., art. 2, sec. 16), to operate upon the question before us, and upon the construction of which we express no opinion, the settled common-law rules relating to the repeal of statutes by implication, brings us to the conclusion, that the seventh section of the water-craft law is not, by implication, affected or repealed by the amendment of the justices’ code.

Judgment of common pleas reversed.

Bartley, C. J., and Brinkerhoee, Scott and Sutliee, JJ., concurred.  