2224 ARTICLE 52

Where in an action ex contractu, plaintiff is entitled to interest as a matter of right
and total of principal and interest (if recovered), would amount to more than one
hundred dollars, a justice has no jurisdiction. 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 conditioned for payment
of money. State v. Tabler, 41 Md. 239.

This section, in connection with sec. 12, confers exclusive jurisdiction upon justices
in replevin, where the value of thing in controversy does not exceed $50. Deitrich v.
Swartz, 41 Md. 200.

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

This section referred to in discussing 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 secs. 8, 47, et seq., 55, et seq., and notes thereto.

Cf. art. 26, sec. 41...

Cited in Quenstedt v. Wilson, 173 Md. 19.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 7. 1912, sec. 7. 1904, sec. 7. 1888, sec. 7. 1852, ch. 239, sec. 1.
1824, ch. 138, sec. 6. 1834, ch. 296, sec. 1.

8. 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.

In order to defeat jurisdiction of justice of the peace under this section, it must
appear from nature of action itself that it was one in which title to land is necessarily
and directly in issue; a suit for improper and negligent construction and operation of
trains at and near plaintiff's residence is not such a case. B. & O. R. R. v. Owens,
130 Md. 679.

Statement of the defendant that title to land is involved is not conclusive, but
such fact must appear from nature of action itself. This section referred to in construing
sec. 9—see notes thereto. Whittington v. Hall, 116 Md. 468.

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

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

A suit for rent does not come under this section, the title to land not being "neces-
sarily and directly in issue." This section must be construed in connection with secs.
7 and 8. Randle v. Sutton, 43 Md. 88; Dietrich v. Swartz, 41 Md. 200; Legum v.
Blank, 105 Md. 131; Shippler v. Broom, 62 Md. 319.

This section does not oust justice's jurisdiction in proceeding for the recovery of
demised premises in Baltimore City, where question is whether or not defendant
rented them from plaintiff. Josselson v. Sonneborn, 110 Md. 549.

Neither a justice nor the city court on appeal, has jurisdiction to determine whether
a title has expired; and it makes no difference that it did not appear that matter of
jurisdiction was raised before justice or in city court. Presstman v. Silljacks, 52 Md. 660.

How the question of jurisdiction should be raised before justice, and also on appeal.
Bills of exception are not allowed. Shippler v. Brown, 62 Md. 319; Cole v. Hynes,
46 Md. 183. Cf. Presstman v. Silljacks, 52 Md. 660.

Cited but not construed in O'Reilly v. Murdock, 1 Gill, 38.

As to landlord and tenant cases, see art. 53, sec. 6.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 8. 1912, sec. 8. 1904, sec. 8. 1888, sec. 8. 1813, ch. 162, secs. 1, 5.
1824, ch. 138, sec. 6. 1825, ch. 51, sec. 1.

9. If the defendant in an action before a justice of the peace for cut-
ting, destroying or carrying away timber or wood to or from any land in
this State or for doing any other injury to such lands shall allege in writ-
ing that he claims title to said lands or that he acted under a person claim-
ing title to the same, whom he shall name in such allegation, and shall
verify said allegation by oath, the justice shall take no further cognizance
of the case.