Case ID: abb-pr_14/html/0297-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Clerke, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SARSFIELD a. VAN VAUGHNER.
    
      Supreme Court, First District; At Chambers,
    July, 1862.
    Ceeditob’s Bill.—Mattee nr Dispute less than Fifty Dollaes.
    An action for equitable relief, where the matter in dispute does not exceed fifty dollars, will be dismissed.
    On the repeal of a statute which repeals or modifies a previous statute or rule, the latter is revived without formal words.
    Motion to dismiss the complaint.
    This action, brought by Patrick Sarsfield against George W. Yan Yaughner and Elizabeth Greer, was in the nature of a creditor’s bill, founded on a judgment against Yan Yaughner, of $88.83, on which was due a balance of only $31.02. Yan Yaughner moved to dismiss the complaint, as involving too small a sum to occupy the court.
    
      Ira O. Miller, for the motion.
    Previous to the adoption of the Revised Statutes, no such action could be maintained for a sum less than ten pounds sterling, or fifty dollars. This was the settled law and practice of the court in this State, as well as in England. (Douw a. Shelden, 2 Paige, 323; Vredenberg a. Johnson, 1 Hopk., 112; Mitchell a. Tighe, Ib., 119.)
    II. Section 37 of 2 Rev. Stat., 173, increased the sum from $50 to $100. (Smets a. Williams, 4 Paige, 364.) The repeal of this section (Laws of 1862, ch. 460, § 39) does therefore manifestly restore the law to the condition in which it was at the time of the adoption of said statute; that is, all such suits below $50 should be dismissed.
    III. The adoption of the new Constitution and the Code did not alter the law in this respect, and this court is governed by the same principles that the Court of Chancery would have been in a similar case. (Shepard a. Walker, 7 How. Pr., 46.)
    IV. A judgment-creditor’s bill must be dismissed unless the amount due on the complainant’s judgment, and the amount of the defendant’s property as claimed by the complaint, each exceeds the required sum. (Shepard a. Walker, supra ; Vaughn a. Ely, 4 Barb., 159; Winsor a. Orcutt, 11 Paige, 578.)
    
      Robert H. Shannon, opposed.
   Clerke, J.

The former Court of Chancery never entertained an action where the matter in dispute did not exceed fifty dollars. This practice obtained by virtue of its inherent power, and without the express sanction of any act of the Legislature.

The latter by its silence recognized this power, and never attempted to interfere with it until it provided in the Eevised Statutes that the Court of Chancery should dismiss every suit where the matter in dispute does not exceed the value of one hundred dollars. The only effect of this was to enlarge the amount from fifty to one hundred dollars. This provision of the Eevised Statutes was repealed by the Legislature during the last session ; the effect of which was to reduce the amount again from one hundred to fifty dollars.

It in no respect interferes with the power of the Court of Chancery for so long a period exercised on this subject.

It is an ancient and well-established principle, that if a statute which repeals or modifies any other statute, or a rule, is itself subsequently repealed, the first statute or rule is thereby revived, without any formal words for that purpose.

This court, as the successor of the Court of Chancery, possesses all its powers; and I think convenience requires that the rule in question should be preserved. .

The motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, without costs of action or motion.