
    Elderkin, Pl’ff in Error, vs. Spurbeck, Def't in Error.
    A Justice has no jurisdiction of a cause, when the plaintiff sets up and claims a sum superior to the jurisdiction of the Justice, to render Judgment. And if that fact appears by tho claim set up by the plaintiff in his declaration, jurisdiction does not attach.
    In such a case, and whore for want of jurisdiction, tho Justico dismisses tho cause, it is error for him to award costs as against the plaintiff.
    Not possessing jurisdiction to try the cause, the Justico has not, on dismissing it, jurisdiction to award costs for any purposo.
    On a certiorari to tho Circuit Court upon a judgment rondored for costs by tho Justice in such a case, if the Circuit Judge affirms the judgment, this . Court will reverse it on error.
    This action was commenced by the plaintiff in error, against the defendant in error, before a Justice of Wal-worth County; and the plaintiff below having declared for, and claimed of the defendant below, a sum superior to the amount for which the Justice had jurisdiction to render judgment, on a motion for the dismissal of the cause, the Justice granted it.
    On a certiorari brought to the late District Court the judgment of the Justice was reversed, and upon such.reversal a writ of error was brought.
    The cause was submitted to the Court without argument.
    
      ElderJcin, for Plaintiff in Error.
    
      
      Kelsey fy Gale, for Defendant m Error.
   By the Court.

Jackson, J.

There are but two questions that properly arise in this cause. First, had the Justice before whom the cause was commenced any jurisdiction 1 Secondly, conceding the Justice had no jurisdiction, were .costs properly awarded against the plaintiff?

The first question can readily be answered by reference to the declaration; from which it is manifest that the plaintiff seeks a recovery for the price of a horse valued at seventy-three dollars, and for the expenses incurred in his keeping, &c., amounting to the further sum of ■twenty-five dollars. It is clear, therefore, that the Justice liad no jurisdiction, 'the “debt or the sum claimed” by the defendant exceeding fifty dollars.

The second question, we thipk is equally free from doubt. It is a well settled principle,, that where an action is dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the Court, whether it be a Court of limited o,r superior jurisdiction, no costs can properly be awarded, 2 Mass. Rep., 207.

And although the Justice before whom this cause wap. brought, very properly dismissed it for want of jurisdiction, yet, as the v^ant of jurisdiction deprived him, of the power to award judgment for costs against the plaintiff, the District Court, to which this cause was brought up by certiorari, should for this, reason, have reversed instead of affirmed, the judgment of the -Justice.

The judgment of the- District; Courf is, therefore re? versed with costs.  