1787-11-13 (static/transcriptions/1787/11/307.jpg)

of the Court; and I am of opinion that they are not.
As to that, I will consider the several natures of those Jurisdictions, which are restrain’d to certain Limits; some are limited as to the subject matter of their Jurisdiction: Of this sort was the Judicature of the Commissioners of Excise, who had a Jurisdiction given them concerning the Impositions on Strong Waters; and their Adjudication of Low [Wines?] to be Strong Waters was an exceeding of their Jurisdiction, and for that action would lie against them, as it was held in Terry and Huntington’s Case, Hardes 480. It was manifest that they had in that Case exceeded their Limits, and as it was there said, they might as well adjudge Rose Water to be Strong Waters. And it was plain reason in the Judgment in the case of the Marshalsea, 10 Co. for the Jurisdiction of that Court, at that time, was only in Debt and Covenant, where both Parties were of the King’s Household; and in Trespass, where one of the Parties were of the Household; and that did not extend to Trespass on the case; and so their holding Plea in an Assumpsit was corram non [ILL] do in case where the founder of an [ILL] Foundation appoints a Visitor, and limits his Jurisdiction by Rules and Statutes; if the Visitor in any Sentence succeeds those Rules, an Action lies against him, as was agreed not only by the other Judges, but by the Chief Justice also, in
the