
    The Executors of Lindsay vs. Archibald Lindsay.
    A discount to an action on a note, -within the summary process jurisdiction, “which involves the titles to land, is inadmissable.
    It seems that where the defendant has a boAa fide defence involving a xi Je to land, that on application to the circuit court, an order requiring the plaintiff to declare, may be obtained, by which means he may avail himself of such defence.
    Tills was a summary process on a promissory note for g-. A plea to the jurisdiction of the court was said tobe hied, but was not produced. As the sum was within ¿20, and there appeared on the face of the proceedings, nothing to support the plea, it was overruled. A discount was then offered, which had been duly filed; in which the defendant claimed a deduction pro rata, for a deficiency of the land, for which the note was said to have been giyen.
    The discount was also overruled, and a decree was given for the plaintiff. •
    From that decision an appeal was now made to this court.
    Williams, for the motion.
    Rogers, contra.
   Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the court.

On the first ground it is only necessary to observe, that as the plea is not produced, and was not filed, it is impossible to controvert the decision of the circuit court.

The act of the legislature which gives to the circuit court summary jurisdiction, expressly excepts all such cases as involve the title to lands. On this ground, discounts similar to the one in question, have invariably been overruled.

To obviate hereafter the difficulties, which are said to have been experienced in this case, it is suggested that when a defendant has a bona fide defence involving a title to land, that on application to the circuit court, an order requiring the plaintiff to declare, might be obtained, in which case a defendant might avail himself of such defence.

The motion in this case must however be refused..

Justices Johnson, Colcocky Nott, Gantt; and Richardson, concurred.  