Case ID: barb_38/html/0444-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court, Leonard, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sarsfield vs. Van Vaughner and Greer.
    The constitution of 1846 and the code of procedure have hy necessary implication abolished every limitation in respect to the amount in controversy theretofore required to give jurisdiction, in actions of an equitable nature entertained only in the court of chancery.
    The act of 1862, repealing the section of the revised statutes which required the court of chancery to dismiss every suit involving less than $100, did not revive any former rule; because the code had previously repealed that section of the revised statutes, and abolished every other rule limiting the jurisdiction of the supreme court.
    Yet where the amount in controversy is less than $100, this may affect the question of costs.
    APPEAL from an order made at a special term, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. The action was in the nature of a creditor’s bill, founded on a judgment against the defendant Van Yaughner, for $88.83, on which there remained due only $31.02. Yan Yaughner moved to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that the sum involved was too small to occupy the attention of the court. '
    
      R. H. Shannon, for the appellant.
    
      Ira O. Miller, for the respondent.
   By the Court, Leonard, J.

The constitution of 1846, and the code of procedure, have by necessary implication abolished every limitation in respect to the amount in controversy theretofore required to give jurisdiction, in actions of an equitable nature, formerly entertained only in the court of chancery. (Giles v. Lyon, 4 N. Y. Rep. 600. Cobine v. St. John, 12 How. Pr. Rep. 333. Coon v. Brook, 21 Barb. 546. Mallory v. Norton, Id. 436.)

IsTo rule was revived by the repeal of section 37, article second, title second, chapter first, part third of the revised statutes, in relation to the jurisdiction of the court of chancery, by the act of 1862; (Laws of 1862, p. 859, ch. 460, § 39;) because the code had previously repealed that statute, and abolished every other rule limiting the jurisdiction of the supreme court.

[New York General Term,

November 24, 1862.

The question of costs may be affected, where the amount in controversy is under $50.

The order appealed from should be reversed, but without costs.

Ingraham, Leonard, and Barnard, Justices.]