
    Shotwell against Daniels.
    Where it appeared from the face of the piainhfthe^óurí'of th^The demand ™ c|gR,”’0UR¿ nof-s in any evpnt, recover aso dollars, tho* the damages demanded in the deciamion°were "oort5pro“R‘lRd n'("tw-^e. in open court a habeas corpus to remove the caire, which had" been duly Miowrefused 'to grant a"a¡n*tttbenjudIp^mmon pl°eas‘ R”t.¡toüc)B^ "here the domaud appears lo he uncertain, so (hat the plaintiff might recover above 250 dollars, the writ must be turned- and ’ e°
    HARRIS moved for a rule against the judges of the „ , ~ , c court or common pleas, or mayor s court, or the city ot New-York, to show cause why an attachment should not issue against them, for not making a return to a habeas corpus, issued to remove a cause from that court into this Court*
    The declaration in the court below contained but one . , , „ count, on a promissory note, dated the 19th or beptemher, 1810, drawn by the defendant'for 208 dollars and 56 cents, payable six months after date, and concluded with demanding damages to 300 dollars. The cause was noticed for trial, in the court below, on the third Monday of July last; and on the first day of the court, before the calling of this or any other cause, the defendant s counsel ' - , , , , moved tor leave to file a habeas corpus to remove the cause, which had been duly allowed by the recorder on the 15th of July, pursuant to the statute; and leave being granted, the writ was filed in open court with the clerk. The next day the plaintiff moved to bring on the cause to trial, and the recorder, the presiding judge of . . 1 ojo the court, permitted the plaintiff to proceed and take a - verdict against the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The act (sess. 24. c. 13.) says, that no personal action depending in any mayor’s court, &c. where the sum mentioned in the condition of the bond or specialty with interest, or the matter or thing in demand, shall not exceed 250 dollars, shall, before judgment, be stayed or removed, &c. It appears from the face of the declaration, that the demand of the plaintiff was certain, and that he could not, in any event, recover the sum of 250 dollars. The court below were, therefore, right in disregarding the writ of habeas corpus; but, in ordinary cases, where, upon the face of the declaration, the sum in demand is uncertain, and might exceed the sum of 250 dollars, the amount stated in the conclusion must be considered as the test of the plaintiff’s demand, and the habeas corpus ought to be returned.

Rule refused.  