Case ID: hill_6/html/0590-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court, Bronson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lester vs. Redmond.
    Though the marine court of the city of New-York is a court of record for certain purposes, it does not act as such in the exercise of its jurisdiction between party * and party ; and consequently the statute of limitations is a good defence to an * action on one of its judgments.
    Error to the superior court of the city of New-York. Lester sued Redmond in the marine court of the city of New-York, in April, 1842, and declared on a judgment which he had recovered against the defendant in that court for $66,72 damages and costs bn the 25th of January, 1832. The defence was the statute of limitations, (2 M. S. 295, § 18;) hut the court overruled the defence and gave judgment for the plaintiff, on the ground that the marine court was a court of record, and that therefore the statute did not apply to the case. On certiorari by the defendant, the superior court reversed the judgment, and the plaintiff brought error.
    
      Brady & Maurice, for the plaintiff in error,
    cited 2 R. L. 381, §§ 106, 7, 110, 139; 13 Wend. 51; 1 Salk. 200 ; 12 Mod. 388; 2 Inst. 311; 4 Rep. 52 ; 2 Rol. Ab. 574.
    
      H. P. Barber, for the defendant in error,
    cited 2 R. S. 276, §§ 1, 3, 9, 10; id. 356, § 1; id. 359, §§ 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 13; 23 Wend. 375; Jac, Law Dict. tit. “ Courts” and “Record," 5 Dane's Ab. 56, Art. 3; id. 57, Art. 3 ; 3 Co. Litt. 349; Bac. Ab. tit. “ Courts,” (D) pl. 2; Dwarr. On Stat. 766.
   By the Court, Bronson, J.

Although the marine court of the city of New-York is a court of record for certain purposes, we think it does not act as a court of record in the exercise of its jurisdiction, between party and party. (Wheaton v. Fellows, 23 Wend. 375.) The case of Watson v. Smith, (13 Wend. 51,) might very well have been decided the other way. Neither the able argument contained in the return, nor the authorities cited at the bar, have satisfied us that in giving the original judgment the court acted as -a court of record. The statute of limitations was consequently a good answer to this action.

Judgment affirmed.