
    Nathaniel Wright vs. Benjamin Coles.
    When an attorney of this court, known as such by the roll, makes an affidavit on a writ that is issued by his direction, for the collection of a debt, that the matter sought to be recovered actually exceeds the sum which is necessary, by St. 1840, c. 87, § 1, to give the court original jurisdiction, it is not necessary that it should appear by the affidavit itself, but the court will infer, that he did the act in behalf of the plaintiff.
    This was an action of assumpsit, commenced in this court, and the damages, laid in the writ, exceeded §300. The defendant moved to dismiss the action, on the ground that the court had not original jurisdiction thereof, for want of such an affidavit as is required by St. 1840, c. 87, § 1. The affidavit was made by “ Thomas A. Gold,” an attorney of this court, without stating that he made it in behalf of the plaintiff, or as his attorney. It was certified by a justice of the peace, and indorsed on the writ.
    
      Sumner, for the defendant.
    
      Gold & Porter, for the plaintiff.
   Shaw, C. J.

The St. of 1840, c. 87, § 1, gives to this court original jurisdiction in civil suits (except in Suffolk county) in which the damages demanded shall exceed three hundred dollars, “ and in which the plaintiff, or some one in his behalf, shall, before service of the writ, make oath or affirmation, before some justice of the peace, that the matter sought to be recovered actually exceeds ” that sum ; “ a certificate of which oath or affirmation shall be indorsed on or annexed to the writ.”

We are of opinion, that when an attorney of this court, known as such by the roll, makes an affidavit on a writ, issued under his direction, for the collection of a debt, it is not necessary that it should appear, by the affidavit itself, but that the court is to infer, that he does the act in behalf of the plaintiff; and that this satisfies the statute.

Motion overruled  