
    James Montgomery vs. John H. Bruere.
    CERTIORARI.
    If a certiorari is quashed for want of jurisdiction in this oonrt, the defendant’s attorney will he entitled to his taxed bill of costs.
    
      
      H. W. Green had obtained the dismissal of this certiorari,
    at ihe last term, because this court had no jurisdiction of the cause; the judgment having been rendered by a justice of the peace for more than three dollars, Montgomery being present, and the remedy being by appeal, instead of certiorari.
    *169] *He now moved for costs against the plaintiff on quashing the certiorari; and cited the case of Saxton v.. Geary, September, 1824; McDermot v. State, 5 Holst. 63.
    
   By the Court.

There are many precedents in this court for the allowance of costs, upon quashing writs of certiorari for defect of jurisdiction and in analogous cases. And the principle seems as correct as the precedents are authoritative. In Hurley v. Cooper, at November term, 1794, a certiorari was quashed for want of j urisdiction; In The State v. Vanderveer, at May term, 1823, because allowed by a judge at chambers, and not in court; In Coddington v. Staunton, at September term, 1823, because a prosecutor was not named, either in the rule for allowance, or on the writ; In Phillips v. Phillips, and in Saxton v. Geary, at September term, 1824, because not the proper remedy; In The State v. Woodward, at February term, 1827, because sued out against good faith; and in all these, costs were ordered.

In the present case, the-certiorari was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

Let there be an order for costs.  