
    Christopher Haggerty, Appellee, vs. Peter Vankirk, Henry C. Kelsey and James Brasted, Executors of Thomas Vankirk, Deceased, Appellants.
    If plaintiff’s state of demand exhibit an original claim exceeding one .hundred dollars, a general credit “by sundries," reducing the sum demanded below one hundred dollars, will not bo sufficient to give the justice jurisdiction.
    
      This was an application for a peremptory mandamus, to be directed to the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Sussex, to compel them to restore an appeal; and came before this court upon the following state of the case, agreed upon by the counsel of the parties, viz :
    The plaintiff below, the appellee in the Court of Common Pleas, filed before the justice a state of *119] demand for one hundred dollars, * (which contained-several items of book account, in the usual form, amounting to........................... Z.38 18 7
    And then gives credit to the defendant thus)
    " credit by sundries,”................................ 9 2 5
    
      l. 29 1G 2
    Equal in dollars and cents to................
    Interest on the above amount to this day.
    $100 00
    The defendants below filed no set-off or' account, and upon this statement of demand a trial was had, before the justice, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff below, the appellee in the Court of Common Pleas, for the sum of ninety-nine dollars. Upon the calling of the appeal in its turn, the defendants below, and appellants in the Court-of Common Pleas, moved the said court by their counsel, to set aside and dismiss the proceedings, upon the ground that the sum in the plaintiff’s state of demand exceeded the jurisdiction of the justice originally, and of the Court of Common Pleas oh the appeal; and that the credit given- by the plaintiff below was not set out with particularity and certainty,-to enable him thereby to reduce his account within the jurisdiction of the justice. Of this opinion was the court, and refused to try the cause; and ordered the proceedings to be set aside and dismissed. But before the argument on this motion was closed, and before the court delivered any opinion, the appellee, the plaintiff below, offered to the court, to prove that the credit given on the statement of demand was not fictitious, but was a bona fide credit or set-off, on and against the account of the appellee, which offer the court refused.
    The above appeal was tried at the present November term of the inferior Court of Common Pleas of the county of Sussex, when the above stated proceedings took place; and it is now agreed between the counsel in the above cause, that the counsel for the appellee may move the Supreme Court of Judicature of this state, at the next February or May term, for a peremptory mandamus upon the inferior Court of Common Pleas of the county of Sussex, to restore the appeal and proceedings before the said court in said *cause; and incase the Supremo Court shall be of [*120 opinion that the Court of Common Pleas aforesaid ought not to have set aside the proceedings and dismissed the same in the cause aforesaid, that the said appeal and proceedings be restored. November term, 1825.
    Thos. C. Ryerson, of Counsel with Appellee.
    
    Alpheus Gustin, of Counsel for the Appellants.
    
    This case was argued by Ryerson and Halsey for the appellee, and Vroom for the appellants.
   The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the court.

We feel ourselves bound by the authority of decided cases on this subject to say, that a general credit, by sundries, like that in the present instance, is not sufficient to bring the cause within the jurisdiction of the justice. In the case of Rice v. Oxenius, Penn. 660, the court declare that a credit of this kind is too vague. In La Rue v. Boughaner, 1 South. 104, the court say, “ If a plaintiff will give credit and strike a balance, he must do it fairly and according to the truth, shewing the particulars, with their dates, as they are in the account.” In Williams and Priestly v. Hamilton, 1 South. 220, the court came over the same ground again, and decided the same way. If the question was a new one, we should all be, probably, of a different opinion at least, we should hesitate very long before we should give such an opinion. But yielding to the weight of adjudged cases, we are conrpelled to refuse the application for a mandamus.

Mandamus refused.  