ART. 52] CIVIL JURISDICTION. 1283

the sum due and claimed does not exceed one hundred dollars; to
actions of replevin where the value of the thing in controversy does not
exceed one hundred dollars and which value shall be ascertained by
appraisers summoned and sworn bv the sheriff or other officer to whom
the writ of replevin is directed, and to all cases of attachments against
non-resident or absconding debtors where the sum claimed does not
exceed one hundred dollars, and also to all cases of attachment in any
of the cases mentioned in section 36 of article 9 where the sum claimed
shall not exceed one hundred dollars; provided, that nothing herein
contained shall be held or construed to affect suits pending on April
5, 1900, nor judgments then existing.

The test of the justice's Jurisdiction in actions ex contractu is the amount
recovered and not the amount claimed; contra in actions of tort. Bushey v.
Culler, 26 Md. 552; Ott v. Dill, 7 Md. 254 (construing also the acts out of
which this section grew); Beall v. Black, 1 Gill, 206; O'Reilly v. Murdock, 1
Gill, 38. See also, Reese v. Hawks, 63 Md. 131; Rohr v. Anderson, 51 Md.
217; Carter v. Tuck, 3 Gill, 251; Abbott v. Gatch, 13 Md. 336.

In an action of tort, where the amount claimed is one hundred dollars,
and the verdict on appeal from a Justice is for one hundred dollars, the
jurisdiction is not exceeded. Herzberg v. Adams, 39 Md. 312.

Where in an action ex contractu, the plaintiff is entitled to interest as a
matter of right and the total of the principal and interest (if recovered),
would amount to more than one hundred dollars, a Justice has no Jurisdic-
tion. Reese v. Hawks, 63 Md. 131. See also, Barger v. Collins, 7 H. & J. 220.
Cf. Harris v. Dorsey, 1 H. & J. 416.

A Justice has no Jurisdiction in a suit on a bond with collateral conditions
for the discharge of official duty. This section refers only to bonds condi-
tioned for the payment of money. State v. Tabler, 41 Md. 239.

This section, in connection with section 11, confers exclusive Jurisdiction
upon Justices in replevin, where the value of the thing in controversy does
not exceed fifty dollars. Deltrlch v. Swartz, 41 Md. 200.

In actions of replevin if there is no appraisement or a fictitious one in
order to give the Justice apparent Jurisdiction (which amounts to the same
thing), the justice has no Jurisdiction. Darrell v. Briscoe, 94 Md. 686.

This section referred to in discussing the meaning of a "trial by Jury," and
in deciding that where either party may have a Jury trial upon appeal, the
constitutional right to such trial is satisfied. Capital Traction Co. v. Hof,
174 U. S. 1.

Cited but not construed in Weed v. Lewis, 80 Md. 128.
See sections 7, 43, et seq; 50, et seq, and notes thereto.
Cf. art. 26, sec. 38.

1904, art. 52, sec. 7. 1888, art. 52, sec. 7. 1860, art. 51, sec. 14. 1852, ch. 239, sec. 1.
1824, ch. 138, sec. 6. 1834, ch. 296, sec. 1.

7. But no justice of the peace shall have any jurisdiction in actions
where the title to land is involved, nor in actions for slander, for breach
of promise to marry or to enforce any lien for work done or materials
furnished.

A suit can not be brought before a justice to recover a deposit on a
contract for the purchase of leasehold property providing that the ground-
rent was an original rent, and that if it were not so the contract should
be void. When the title to land is involved. Legum v. Blank, 105 Md. 128;
Randle v. Button, 43 Md. 67.

Where the suit is for a balance of the purchase money of land the justice
has Jurisdiction, unless it affirmatively appears that the contract is still
executory and the defendant has not accepted a deed Cole v. Hynes, 46
Md. 185.