
    John Cochran and Cyrus H. Ober plaintiffs in error, vs. Crawford Glover, defendant in error.
    
      Error to Van Burén.
    
    An assignee of a note may sue in his own name, although only part of the amount be assigned to him.
    In actions before justices of the peace, if the sum claimed does not exceed fifty dollars, it is within his jurisdiction.
    Crawford Glover sued John Cochran, before a justice of the peace of Van Burén county, on a note of which the following is a copy:
    “ Twelve months after date I promise to pay A. J. Davis, or order, one hundred dollars for value received, to bear interest after due, at the rate of ten per cent, per annum ; for the payment of which I bind my heirs, &c., this seventeenth day of January 1840.
    “ Keosauqua, I. T. “A. w' HARLAN, [seal.”}
    Upon which note there were the following endorsements, viz :
    “January 27, 1841. Received on the within, forty dollars, and interest on the same. “ HENRY GILLY.”
    “ Cr. on the within ten dollars, “ CRAWFORD GLOVER.”
    “ 1 assign the within note to B. B. Rew, without any recourse on me.
    “A, J. DAVIS.”
    
      “ I assign the within note to John Cochran for value received, this April 20, 1841. “ B. B. REW.”
    “November 2nd, 1841. I assign sixty dollars of the within to Crawt-ford Glover. ’ “JOHN COCHRAN.”
    On the day previous to trial, the plaintiff entered a credit on the note for ten dollars. And the justice gave judgment against Cochran for “ fifty dollars, with interest and costs of suit until paid, and costs that accrued in the case of Glover against Piarían.” Cochran appealed to the District Court, O. H. Ober being security in the bond.
    The case was submitted at the September term 1841, of the District Court, Judge Mason presiding, and a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff against the defendant, for the sum of $50 and costs.
    The cause is here on a writ of error. Errors assigned:
    1. The plaintiff in the court below, had no right to sue in his own name.
    2. The justice of the peace had no jurisdiction.
    3. The judgment of the court below is not good.
   Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff in error seems to rely upon two points:

1. The plaintiff in the court below had no right to sue in his own name;

2. The justice of the peace had no jurisdiction.

In regard to the first point, the only ground for an argument arises from the fact, that Cochran in assigning the note to Glover, only assigned sixty dollars thereof. Such an assignment, is, we think, sufficient to render him liable as an endorser to that amount; and that Glover had the same right to sue in his own name, as though the assignment had been unqualified.

As to the question of jurisdiction, the point has been already settled in this court in the case of Hall vs. Biever

The judgment of the court below will therefore be affirmed. 
      
       Ante. page 113.
     