‘‘ any other Attorney, of any other Court, and at the fame time a
‘‘ mortgage of lands in the fame county, as a collateral fecurity.’’ The Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court as of Bucks county of September Term 1787 ; whereupon a writ of Error was fued out, in order to fet the Judgment afide, and the following errors affigned:
1ʃt. That the Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court for a debt which arofe beƒore the paffing of the Act of Affembly, that gave original jurifdiction to the Supreme Court, in the county of Philadelphia.
2dly. That the warrant of Attorney did not authorize the entering (illegible text)Judgment in the Supreme Court: and
3dly. The general errors.
To which in nullo eʃt erraium was pleaded.
Swiƒt for the Plaintiff in error, argued, I. That the Supreme Court never had original juriʃdictioon ‘till the late law ; for, the act by which it was inftituted, gives only an appellate juriʃdiction : 1 State Laws. 114. 15. Sect. 11. and that it was evidently the intention of the Legiflature to confine, even the exercife of that power, to fuits exceeding Ł.50 ibid. 338.9. Sect. 4. He infifted, that the Act of Affembly giving the original jurifdiction, likewife furnifhed a fatisfactory inference, that the Court did not previoufly poffefs it ; but that, at all events, after the act was paffed, no action, for any antecedent debt or cauʃe, could be brought in the Supreme Court ; nor, even for debts arifing after that act was paffed, in any other country than Philadelphia. 4 State Laws. 154. Sect. 4.5.
II. On the fecond error, he ftated, that, as it was an error in ƒact, the Defendant's plea had allowed it ; for, if the Plaintiff affigned error in ƒact, and error in law, the Defendant ought to join iffue as to the fact, and plead in nullo eʃt erraium only, he admits the facts, and the Jugment muft be reverfed. 2 Bac. Abr. 218. He waved this advantage, however, and contended, that the warrant, authorizing any Attorney, to enter up the Judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, of Bucks county, could not be extended to authorize the entering it up in the Supreme Court : for, where an inƒerior thing is mentioned, a ʃuperior cannot be intended. 2 Co. 46 and fuch has been the uniform determination of the Judges. 2 Inʃt. 457. 8. The warrant of Attorney gives a bare authority, which ought to be ftrictly purfued, and, though directed to any Attorney of any other Court, this cannot be taken to mean of a Superior Court, but only Courts oƒ equal and concurrent juriʃdiction. Nor can the jurifdiction be given be confent (which he faid, however, was not the prefent cafe) for, common recoveries are certainly actions by confent, and yet it was neceffary that a law fhould exprefsly veft, in the Supreme Court, a power to entertain them. 1 State Laws 224. But the intention of the parties appears by the mortgage, as well as by the Court fpecified in the warrant, to have been to bind only the eftate in Bucks county ; whereas, by entering up the Judgment in the Supreme Court,
