
    Goldey and another vs. Becker.
    A bill of discovery to aid a suit at law, although the stun in controversy is under one hundred dollars, will be'sustained.
    
      February 6, 1832.
    Ay action had been brought by the defendant against the complainants in the marine court of the city of New York to recover ninety-nine dollars and fifty cents upon a promissory note. The latter filed a bill of discovery to aid their defence at law, and required the defendant to answer upon an allegation of usury. An .injunction was also obtained, which restrained the proceedings in the marine court until an answer could be put in to the bill. A motion was made to dissolve the injunction; and the principal point relied upon was, a want of jurisdiction: inasmuch as the Revised Statutes, vol. 2, p. 173, sec. 37, declared the court of Chancery had, in no case, jurisdiction where the amount in dispute did not exceed one' hundred dollars. " :
    Mr. G. White, for the defendant.
    Mr. J. Radcliff, for •the complainants.
   The Vice-Ciiaycellor.

A mere bill of discovery in aid of a suit at law is not within the statute requiring a bill concerning property to be dismissed, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, does not exceed the value of one hundred dollars. Under the statute relating to the interest of money, 1 R. 8. p. 771, a defendant is bound to make answer upon any bill filed for the discovery of any suih of money, goods or things in , . , ....... - , . . action' taken, accepted or received m violation of the provisions °f such statute: notwithstanding the smallness of the amount. The motion must be denied; but as it is, perhaps, a new point» I shall not give costs. No harm will be done by withholding them at this time. ..The defendant will be entitled to these, as well as to the costs of~putting in his answer, whenever it is perfected.  