1787-11-13 (static/transcriptions/1787/11/310.jpg)

Jurisdiction of the Court, all the Proceedings after will be void, and coram non Judice; and that was the reason of the Judgement in the case of Richardson and Barnard, 1 Ro. Abr. 545, 809. March. Rep. 8. because it appear’d in the Body of the Declaration that the place where the Bond was made, was in the Body of the Country out of their Jusidiction. But where nothing of that appears by the Plaintiff’s Declaration, it ought to be made known to the Court by the Defendant’s Plea to the Jurisdiction of the COurt; which Plea of the Court refuses, or accepts it, and proceeds after; if the Plea be offer’d (as it ought to be) before Imparlance and on Oath, all the proceedings afterwards will be void, and the Judge and Officer will be liable to Actions; and that the Law is so, appears by the Statute W. d. c. 35. Which prohibits inferior Courts to proceed in Contracts, Covenants and Trespasses, made out of their Jurisdiction, and give double damages to the Body grieved. On which Statute two Writs of Prohibition have been pained, as appears by Reg. [Bij?.] 98. F. N. B. 45. F. one before any suit commenced, and the other after the Suit commenced, on which the Party ought to recover double damages against the inferior Judge who prceeds after, but the Lord Coke in his Comment on that Statute 2 Inst: 30 saith, that if the Party Pleads to the Action, he
hath