
    John Ramsay against The Court of Wardens.
    
      Charleston District,
    
    
      1798.
    
    v-har^Si°íi takes eogni-iwte of hand ji'iuiht'iff1 has Spt for r3() der to^ive the cii> court ju-nsdiction of the case. A prohibition niil lay to the inferior court of the citv of
    UPON a motion for a prohibition.
    This was a motion for a prohibition, to restrain the in-^er*or court; °f the city of Charleston, from proceeding in a case, which it was alleged exceeded the jurisdiction of the court of wardens ; which was authorized to hold pleas in ctytl suits, to the amount of 201. sterling, equal to 88 dollarS> but n0 fur£her-
    The note on which this suit was brought, was originally c-iven by the defendant for 115 dollars, on which the holder. 0 J . ' Mr. Ehrick, liad written a receipt for 30 dollars, which reduced it down to 85, in order (as it was said) to give jurisdiction to that court. This court sat monthly ; the recovery of small sums, therefore, in it, was much more speedy than in the court of common pleas, which sat but twice a year; and it often happened that the courts could not go through the docket of civil causes, during the term.
    On the trial before the wardens, the defendant took exception to the cause of action, as exceeding the jurisdiction of the court, but they ruled that a plaintiff had a right to give what credit he pleased on the note ; that it was no injustice done to him, by giv ing such credit, but a favour conferred, by giving up a right pro tanto ; and therefore gave judgment for the balance; and the plaintiff was about taking out an execution against defendant’s goods for the amount. This, was therefore, a motion for a prohibition, to stop the court of wardens from proceeding any further in the cause.
    In support of this motion, it was said, that if a court of inferior limited jurisdiction exceeds its authority, or over-leaps the boundaries prescribed to it, this court ought to restrain it by a prohibition. 4 Bac. Abr. tit. Prohibition, p. 253.
    
      That the original debt in the present case was 115 dol-?ars, not one shilling of which had ever been paid by defendant, though he was ready and willing to pay every farthing when called upon in a court of competent jurisdiction. That the plaintiff, Mr. Ehrick, knowing that this sum was above the jurisdiction of the court of wardens, had voluntarily, and without the knowledge or consent of the defendant, wrote a receipt on the note for 30 dollars, in order to give the wardens’ court conusance of the cause. This, it was urged, was not a bona Jide transaction, but a colourable one, contra Jidem, for the express purpose of creating a jurisdiction, in a case which the policy of the law had forbidden that court to intermeddle with. The law is therefore very clear, that if a credit is given for a shilling, in order to give an inferior court jurisdiction, where it had none before, it is a legal fraud, and a prohibition will lie. As in the case of Clarke v. Clarke, Palm• 564. where a suit was brought in the hundred court for forty shillings, in which action the plaintiff confessed that he was satisfied one shilling, which being done to give that court jurisdiction, (having jurisdiction only of all sums under forty shillings,) and to defraud the superior courts, a prohibition was granted. 4 Bac. 253.
    So also, a contract where divers small sums of money were to be paid at different times, under forty shillings each, the plaintiff proceeded in divers plaints on each part separately. The court restrained him by prohibition, because though there be several contracts, yet inasmuch as they were all due, and plaintiff might have brought one action, he ought to have done so, and sued here for his money, and not put the defendant to unnecessary vexation, any more than he can split an entire debt into divers, to give an [inferior court jurisdiction, in fraudan legis.
    
   Per Curiam.

However plausible the relinquishment or giving up part of a debt may at first glance appear, yet if it be done with a view of giving an inferior court jurisdiction of a cause, where the law had excluded it before, it is a legal fraud; it is eluding the wisdom and foresight of the law, and breaking down those guards which had been placed arouncl these inferior jurisdictions. No man, therefore, shall be allowed to create a jurisdiction for himself, by changing, the real position of parties in any contract, by his own act, without the assent of the other party to the contract.

The receipt on the note in question, for the purpose of giving the court of wardens conusance of the cause, was clearly a colourable transaction. It was in effect changing the nature of the original contract, and makin , it a subject of inferior jurisdiction ; which, in its origin, was only cog* nisable in the supreme court of judicature. The court of wardens had no right to intermeddle with it.

Let the rule for the prohibition be made absolute-.

Present, Burke, Grimke, Waties and Bay.  