
    Samuel Farrar vs. Lemuel Parker.
    The oath which is required by St. 1840, c. 87, § 1, in order to give original jurisdiction of certain civil actions to the supreme judicial court, that the matter sought to be recovered exceeds in amount or value the sum of $300, need not be subscribed by the party making it.
    A certificate was written on the back of a writ in these words: 11 This certifies that the demand within set forth exceeds the sum of $300, and that I expect to recover more than that sum 5” but it was not subscribed. A justice of the peace certified thereunder, that the plaintiff (naming him) u made oath to the certificate above by him subscribed.” Held, that the plaintiff's oath was sufficiently certified.
    This action was commenced in this court, and the damages demanded by the plaintiff exceeded the sum of three hundred dollars. The defendant moved the court to dismiss the action, for want of jurisdiction thereof, “ because neither the plaintiff nor any one in his behalf, did make, before the service of the writ, any sufficient oath or affirmation, before any justice of the peace, that the matter sought to be recovered actually exceeds, in amount or value, the sum of three hundred dollars; and no sufficient certificate of such oath or affirmation was indorsed on or annexed to the writ.”
    On the back of the writ was the following indorsement: “ This certifies that the demand within set forth, exceeds the sum of three hundred dollars, and that I expect to recover more than that sum.
    “ Middlesex, ss. October 3d 1843. Then Samuel Farrar made oath to the certificate above by him subscribed, before me, Isaac S. Morse, Justice of the Peace.”
    
      E. Fuller, for the defendant.
    
      Morse, for the plaintiff.
   Shaw, C. J.

The question is, whether this court has original jurisdiction of this action; and this depends on the question, whether the certificate indorsed is a compliance with the St. of 1840, c. 87, § 1. The statute does not require the oath to be subscribed. The condition on which this court shall have original jurisdiction (except in the county of Suffolk) of a suit in which the damages demanded exceed $300, is, that “the plaintiff, or some one in his behalf, shall, before service of the writ, make oath or affirmation, before some justice of the peace, that the matter sought to be recovered actually exceeds in amount or value the said sum.”

We think the effect is the same as if the efficient words in the plaintiff’s certificate were embodied in the certificate of the magistrate. The only doubt that could arise is this ; that the magistrate describes it as “ the certificate above by him subscribed,” when in fact it is not subscribed. But subscription not being necessary to its validity, these words are no further material, than as words of description, to identify the declaration by him referred to. And as the magistrate’s certificate is written immediately under the declaration purporting to be that of the plaintiff, that declaration is sufficiently identified by the word “ above.”

Motion overruled.  