Case ID: mann-unrep-cas_1/html/0017-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Manning, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 6618.
    Watson Van Benthuysen vs. Wackerbach & Joseph.
    When the General Assembly, in amending the Code of Practice, for the first time provided for a summary docket in this court and specified the kinds of cases that should be placed thereon, the rule of this court touching such docket was superseded by that legislation, and as promissory note eases were not included in the legislative list of preference cases, they were not entitled to be advanced for hearing, and could not be put on the summary docket.
    A rule of court, contrary to or inconsistent with a statutory enactment, will not be enforced.
    
      Semmes & Mott for Defendants.
    A motion was made by defendants appellants to strike the case from the summary docket, on the ground that promissory note cases were not included in the list of preference cases by any legislative Act. This was in 1877. The motion was refused, and judgment rendered for the amount of the note.
   On application for rehearing.

Manning, C. J.

We are surprised to find the appellants are entitled to have the case removed from the summary docket. The article of the Code of Practice and the various statutes on the subject were cited and reviewed, from which it appeared that promissory note cases had been omitted in the legislative changes. The case was ordered to be removed from the summary docket. The attention of the legislature having been thus attracted, this omission was supplied (Acts 1878 p. 45), and the suit was replaced on the summary docket and judgment summarily rendered.