RuFFiN,  G.  J.  Without  adverting  to  the  other  objec-
tions, the  Court  deems  that  upon  the  question  of  jurisdic-
tion, fatal  to  the  action  >

It  is  first  to  be  noted,  that  this  is  not  within  that  pro-
vision in  the  Act,  which  makes,  ^'demands  due  on  special
contract  or  agreement,"  cognizable  before  a  magistrate
out  of  Court;  because  that  clause  is  restricted  to  de-
mands of  960,  or  under,  and  this  contract  and  action  are
for  $75.  The  question  is,  whether  it  falls  within  the
other  clause,  which  embraces  debts,  whereof  the  principal
does  not  exceed  $100,  "due  on  bonds,  notes,  and  liquidated
accounts."  We  think,  it  does  not  This  contract  is  not
a  bond  ;  not  being  under  seal.  Nor  is  it  a  note,  in  the
sense  of  the  statute  ;  which  means,  like  the  Acts  of  1762,
and  1786,  by  that  word,  "  note,"  a  promissory  note  for
money.  That  is  the  legal  import  of  the  term  per  se  ;  and
the  construction  is  the  clearer  upon  this  statute,  from  the
contrast  in  the  language  of  the  two  clauses  in  this  sec-
tion, which  relate  to  the  several  classes  of  debts,  of  |I60,
and  of  $100 :  that  of  the  former  being  *'  special  contract,
note,  or  agreement"  generally,  while  that  of  the  latter  is
confined  to  the  specific  forms  of  contracts,  '*  bonds  or
notes,"  in  their  technical  sense.  Still  less  can  this  instru-
ment l>e  called  "a  liquidated  account  ;*'  which  the  Statute


DECEMBER  TERM,  1847.  n

SUto  V.  Wall's  Ex'ra.
