
    [Pittsburg,
    Sept. 27, 1822.]
    EMERY against NELSON.
    IN ERROR.
    When a justice of the peace has jurisdiction of a case, his judgment, though erroneous, is binding on the parties until reversed on a certiorari or appeal
    This was an action of trover for a heifer, brought before a justice of the peace, by William Nelson, the defendant in error, against John Emery, the plaintiff in error. ‘ The magistrate gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff, for 8 dollars, and the defendant appealed to the court of common pleas of Mercer county. Am action of trover had been previously brought by Emery against Nelson, for the same heifer, which was submitted to referees, who reported the sum of 4 dollars in favour of the plaintiff, for which the magistrate before whom the suit was brought, entered judgment.
    In order to prove property in the heifer at the commencement of the present’suit, the pláintiff produced, on the trial in the common pleas, the record of the trial and judgment in the case of Emery v. Nelsoy,, which he contended was conclusive as to the right of property. The defendant contended, that the value of the property in controversy'being-less than 10 dollars, the award and judgment were irregular and void, and must be treated as nullities.
    The cpurt was of opinion, that although the judgment was not perfectly regular, yet as the justice had jurisdiction of the cause of action, and the defendant had acquiesced in it, by omitting to remove it by certiorari within a proper time, it must be considered a valid judgment against the defendant. An exception was taken by the defendant to this opinion; and the verdict being for the plaintiff, the cause was. removed to this court by writ of error.
    
      Forward, for the plaintiff in error. No consent can give a justice of the peace power to enter a judgment upon an award of referees, if he be not authorised to do so by act of assembly. And there is not only no act which authorises a ■ reference in á case like this, but it is in terms excluded by the 2d section of the act of 22d March, 1814., Purd. Dig. 363. This section permits a reference only when the demand in controversy exceeds tent dollars.
    
      Farrelly and Bankes, contra.
    A justice of the peace having jurisdiction in cases of trover, where the property in dispute does not exceed 100- dollars, the objection here is not to the jurisdiction, but to the mode of trial. The parties were entitled to. try their cause in any manner they pleased, and they chose, a reference, which, independently of the act of as-semby, would have been good at common law. If parties appear before the justice, and try the. cause before the return, day of the summons, they are bound by his judgment, Buchmyer v. Bubs, 5Binn. 32 ; and why should they not be bound by this- judgment on an award of referees made by consent ? There is no difference in principle. But if the judgment waserroneous, it was binding upon the-parties until reversed by certiorari, or on appeal. Zeigler v. Zeigler, 2 Serg. & Bawle., 286. Lewis v. Smith, 2 Serg. &• Rawle, 156, 1-62. The omission to adopt the remedy given by law amounted to a release of errors.
   Per. Curiam.

William Nelson, the plaintiff below, brought this action of troyer, for a heifer which had been the subject of another action of trover, brought by the present defendant against him before a justice of the peace, in which there was a recovery againsthim forfour dollars, the value of the heifer. If that was a valid judgment, the property was transferred to the present plaintiff, and whether it was valid was the question on the trial in the court below. It ivas objected, that the judgment was invalid, because the justice gave judgment in an action of trover, where the property in dispute was of less value than 10 dollars, on the award of certain persons to 'whom the suit was referred by consent of the parties. The counsel for the defendant, contends that the act of 23d March, 1814, gives no power in such case, to enter a judgment on the report of referees. We give no opinion on the regularity oí thejudgment, but inasmuch as the justice, had jurisdiction of the case, we are of opinion that the judgment was not void. It might have been appealed from and removed by certio-rari to the Court of Common Pleas. But being acquiesced in, by both parties, it is between those parties a valid judgment. That being the case, the .property of'the heifer was transferred to the present plaintiff, who having proved a demand and refusal, was entitled to a verdict. We are .of opinion, therefore, that thejudgment should be affirmed.  