Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/914

DAILY V. DOB. 907 �ent that the justice had junsdiction of the parties and the subjeet-matter. That he had jurisdietion of the parties if he had jurisdietion of the subject-matter — that is, if the case was one that he was competent to try — is olear enough, since they appeared, put in a complaint and answer, and went to trial without any objection on the part of the defendant, this libellant. He thereby waived any defect in the process, so far as jurisdietion of his person is concerned. The question whether the justice had jurisdietion of the subject-matter depends on the construction of the statute under which he acted. That statute provides that justices of the peace shall have civil jurisdietion in certa.in cases, ineluding "an action to recover the possession of personal property claimed, the value of which, as stated in the affidavit of the plaintiff, his agent, or attomey, shall not exceed the sum of $200." It is pro- vided in the same statute that, before any process shall issue, the plaintiff, his agent, or attomey shaU make proof, by aflS- davit, showing among other things the "actual value" of the property claimed. This is, unquestionably, the affidavit first referred to as "the affidavit of the plaintiff, his agent, or attor- ney." The question is whether this proof by the affidavit, that the value does not exceed $200, is an essential prerequi- site to the attaching of the jurisdietion of the court. In the absence of authoritative decisions of the state courts it might be considered doubtful whether the substance of the require- ment as to jurisdietion might not be that the value of the property in fact does not exceed $200, and whether, where the defendant appears and submits to the jurisdietion, the failure to make the affidavit might not be considered as cured by his waiving it. But the court of appeals have, I think, passed on this question, and given a construction to the statute, holding that its meaning is not that the justice has jurisdietion when the value of the property does not in fact exceed $200, but only in case the plaintiff, his agent, or attorney has, by his affida- vit, made proof of that fact. I think this is the real meaning and effect of the decision in Demiis v. Orittenden, 42 N. Y, 542, and this court is bound to follow that decision. The affidavit being essential to conferring jurisdietion on the jus- ����