
    James H. Knowlton, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, vs. Amos F. Culver et al., Defendants in Error.
    The county of La Fayetto being formed out of a part of Iowa county, and organized on the first of May, 1847; and the act organizing that county providing, that in all the causes and suits, pending and undetermined in the county of Iowa, upon appeal or otherwise, at the time of the organization, and wherein the defendant shall file an affidavit in the district court of Iowa county, of his residence in La Fayette county, the courts of Iowa county cease to have jurisdiction over such causes or suits ; and the jurisdiction attaches to the county of La Fayette.
    
      Error to the late District Court of La Fayette County.
    This was an action of Replevin, before a Justice of the Peace, and was carried up on appeal, and tried before the District Court.
    The decision of this Court is based upon a question of jurisdiction; and the merits were, in no sense involved, so as to require a statement of them here.
    This is one o.f a series of cases between the same parties, but involving somewhat, distinct points and pror positions.
    
      Ilnowlion for Plaintiff in Error;
    
      Culver for Defendant in Error.
   By the Court

Larrabee, J.

The only question in this-cause is one of Jurisdiction, The county of La Fayette-was formed out of a portion of Iowa county, and fully organized on the 1st day of May, 1847. The act organizing the county, provides that all the suits and causes pending and undetermined in the county of Iowa upon appeal or otherwise, at the time of organization, in which the defendant shall file an affidavit in the District Court of Iowa county, of residence in La Fayette county, shall be certified to the District Court of the last named county.

This provision is evidently limited to suits in the District Court, and cannot include suits “ pending and undetermined” before Justices of the Peace. Those officers were continued in office upon the division of the county, as officers, of the county in which they resided a.t the time; and in the absence of a contrary provision, suits before them would be prosecuted as if no- division had taken place; if “determined” they could be removed to the-District Court of the “same county” as provided by Statute. It certainly could not have been intended by the act of organization to authorize the removal of suits pending before Justices, to the District Court of La Fay-ette co.unty, by the circuitous process of first bringing the cause to Iowa county, and filing an affidavit in the District Court, and then being certified to the District Court of La Fayette county.

But this cause was determined before the Justice on the 14th of April, and the plaintiff had the right undoubtedly, at any time before the first day of May, to remove his cause by certiorari, to the District Court of Iowa county. Had he done so, and the defendant come within the provision, the cause might have been afterwards removed to La Fayette. But after that date, though his right of cer-tiorari remained, the cause being determined before a Justice of a different county, no writ could reach it from the county of Iowa. .The- cause was then within the jurisdiction of the District Court of La Fayette county.

We think therefore that the Court b.elow erred in dis-, missing this cause. Judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded to the La Fayette Circuit for the further , action of that Court.

Judgment reversed.  