
    Diehm v. Parkes.
    The supreme court will not review the judgment of the court of common pleas, on certiorari to a justice of the peace, sustaining the proceedings, although it is alleged that the judgment is against a married woman under the Act of 1818, without joining her husband. The jurisdiction of the justice is conferred by the Act of 1810 or the supplement of 1879, and these Acts exclude a review by the supreme court.
    Feb. 14, 1889.
    Error, No. 35, July T. 1888, to C. P. Chester Co., to review a judgment dismissing exceptions on a certiorari to a justice of the peace, at Jan. T. 1888, No. 123. Clark and Green, JJ., absent.
    The transcript showed that the action was .against Kachel A. Diehm, that the summons was issued Jan. 7, 1888, returnable Jan. 13, and was served personally Jan. 9, by producing the original summons and informing her of the contents thereof. The transcript then continued. “Jan. 13th, plaintiff appears, the defendant not appearing. The plaintiff claims debt for work and labor done on the farm of the defendant, with his hands, manual labor; commenced work on. Feb. 22, 1887, and continued up to Nov. 10, 1887, when he was discharged, a balance of $43.50 being dne him, after deducting credits, in money, goods and loss time. Demand, $43.50. Plaintiff affirmed, John McCannon affirmed for plaintiff, James Keenan affirmed for plaintiff. After hearing their proofs and allegations, judgment for plaintiff for $43.50 and costs of suit, at forty minutes past 10 o’clock, by default. Jan. 17, copy to defendant.”
    The following exceptions were filed: 1, 5. Defendant was not legally served. 2. Defendant is a married woman whose husband is living and was not joined in the action. 3. Defendant never engaged the plaintiff to work for her, nor authorized any person to engage him for her. 4, 6, 7. Plaintiff has a judgment against a third person for the same cause of action, which remains unsatisfied. 8. The justice did not state that judgment was entered publicly.
    The court dismissed the exceptions in an opinion by "Waddell, J., reported in 5 Pa. C. C. R. 146.
    
      The assignments of error specified the action of the court, 1, in dismissing the exceptions; 2, in not permitting the defendant to show that she was a married woman; and, 3, in not setting aside the proceedings before the justice.
    
      Wm. M. Hayes, with him D. S. Talbot, for plaintiff in error.
    The jurisdiction of the justice, in a suit against a married woman, is not derived from the Act of March 20, 1810. This Act does not apply to cases arising under special statutes and the judgment of the ■court below can therefore be reviewed. Zimmerly v. Comrs., 25 Pa. 134; Com. v. Burkhart, 23 Pa. 521; Borland v. Ealy, 43 Pa. 111.
    The Acts of 1848 and 1887 confer jurisdiction over married women and these statutes do not prohibit a writ of error.
    
      Monaghan, House & Fairlamb, who were not called upon, for defendant in error.
    The Acts of 1848 and 1887 impose liability on married women in specified cases but they do not pretend to confer jurisdiction upon any tribunal to enforce this liability. The justice entertained the suit by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1810, ■5 Sm. L. 161. The determination of the cause by the court below was final and the judgment cannot be reviewed. Act of March 20, 1810, §§ 22 and 24, 1 Purd. 708, pl. 30; Borland v. Ealy, 43 Pa. 111; Johnson v. Hibbard, 3 Wh. 12; Silvergood v. Storrick, 1 Watts, 532; Cozens v. Dewees, 2 S. & R. 112; Castor v. Cloud, 2 W. N. C. 252.
    Where jurisdiction is exercised under the Act of 1879, enlarging the jurisdiction to $300, the judgment of the court below ■cannot be reviewed. Stewart et al. v. Lindsay et al., 3 Penny. 85.
    The law will not encourage the defeat of just judgments • by technicalities. Penna. Pulp Co. v. Stoughton, 106 Pa. 458.
    The arguments on the merits are omitted.
    Feb. 14, 1889.
   Per Curiam,

Writ of error quashed.

Note. — Under this decision and those cited by defendant in error, the writ in Murdy v. McCutcheon, 95 Pa. 435, should have been quashed. The point was not raised in that case. See report in 1 Ches. Co. 326.  