
    McKINNEY VS. ALLEN.
    In an action ex delicto for damages arising from negligence, the sum declared for, is the criterion of jurisdiction.
    Error to District Court of Allegheny County, No. 153 October and November Term, 1873.
    This was an action upon the case to recover damages arising from killing a cow. Allen in pursuance of an agreement with McKinney put his cow to pasture in a field. The cow escaped through the fence and was killed. Allen brought suit for $200 damages, but on the trial swore the cow was worth $75. McKinney claimed the Court had no jurisdiction, the proviso in Section 1st of Act of April 8, 1833, P. Laws 305, being as follows: “ Provided that the said Court shall have no jurisdiction, either originally or on appeal, except when the sum in controversy shall exceed one hundred dollars.” Verdict for plaintiff. McKinney took out a writ of error and in his behalf
    
      Messrs. T. Marshall and Patterson argued:
    That as the cow was not worth more than $75, the plaintiff could not give the Court jurisdiction merely by declaring for a larger sum. Kline vs. Wood, 9 S. & R. 294; Coxe vs. Tilghman, 1 Wharton 282; Willard’s Appeal, 15 Sm. 265.
    
      C. B. M. Smith, Esq., contra, argued:
    That the sum declared for determined the jurisdiction. Ancora vs. Burns, 5 Binney 522; Hancock vs. Barton, 1 S. & R. 269; Burr vs. Bayne, 10 Watts 299; Forrester vs. Alexander, 2 P. A. Browne 38; Byrne vs. Gordon, 2 P. A. Browne 271.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court below on October 19, 1874, in the following opinion :

Per Curiam.

This was an action ex delicto founded upon negligence, and the plaintiff’s claim sounded in damages. In such case the sum laid in the declaration is the criterion of jurisdiction; Burr vs. Bayne, 10 Watts 299.

It is not denied that there are cases to be found where the action for negligence is founded in contract which will confer jurisdiction upon justices of the peace. Such were, McCahan vs. Hirst, 7 Watts 175; Todd vs. Figley, 7 Watts 542; where the cause of action was founded upon a bailment though the action was for negligence. But in such cases the reason of the rule is, that it depends on a contract, express or implied, under the Act of March 20th, 1810, 5 Sm. 161. But in this case jurisdiction is not made to depend on the nature of the claim, .but on the sum in controversy. Of this the Court can judge, upon a plea to the jurisdiction, only by referring to plaintiff’s demand where damages for the injury are the matter claimed.

Judgment affirmed.  