New-York daily tribune., 1856-05-21

We publish this morning the decision of Mr.. JUS
tice Ingraham of the Court Of Common Pleas, upon
the question of the jurisdiction of that court over
appeals from the Marine Court. Il is well known
that it has twice at least been held in the Supreme
Court that all appeals from judgmnnts of Marine
Court Justice must be taken to the General Term
in the first instance, and not to the Common Pleas
as had been the practice. In pronouncing these
decisions the Supreme Court in.imated-what in
deed is scarcely matter II the
General Term of the Marine Court possessed these
powers, IL is, under the statutes, court OF last
resort, coordinate with the Court OF Appeals.
Under this construction Of the law, several hun
dred executions were taken out upon Judgments
entered by order of single Justice OF the Marine
Court, but which had since been reversed by the
Common Pleas. Some of these have been satisfied;
but almost all have remained in statu quo, waiting
for the decision which we to day publish, upon an
application for an Injunction on the proceedings In
one of these suits, which altogether probably, In
yolye some one or two hundred thousand dollars.
We publish, in another column, Judge Ingra-
hams opinion, granting the injunction applied for
In bis long and elaborate judgment, Judge 1ngra.
ham reviews the questions presented in every
aspect He holds that the appellate jurisdiction Of
the Court of Common Pleas remains unimpaired
by the statute of 1853 which simply renders that Of
the General Term of the Marine Court concurrent.
Thus all parties who may desire review OF the
decisions of Justice of that Court may appeal
either to the General Term or the Court Of Com
mon Pleas as they may prefer This Judgment
strikes us as being as just and wholesome as the
argument by which it is sustained is conclusive.
Though the jurisdiction of the Marine Court is
limited to causes directly involving $500, it is
sometimes called to adjudicate upon very impor.
tant questions, both of law and of fact. Many
cases come up there, simply because trial can be
so speedily obtained, and decision may indirectly
affect large amounts Of property. Thus the
questions of the proprietorship Of the Irving
House, and of that of the Bowery Theater, have
been presented there In several cases. Could
an appeal be taken from what is called BY its
members the full bench of this Court the dispOsi-
ton Of the question in hand at least as regards future
causes, would not be ofso much moment. Thecon-
struction adopted by the Supreme Court would in
yoye 10 be sure, additional expense and litigation,
which, in nine cases out Of ten, would eat up the
matter in controversy-but there would be an op-
portunity for the right principle eventually to pre-
vail. But whatever force the adjudcations of the
General Term may possess they have been held to be
fnal-a fact of itself quite enough to prove that
the Legislature never could have intended its juris-
dction to be exclusive.
But in respect to cases already decided, like that
in which Judge Ingraham has just granted an in
Junction, this point is of less consequence. The
judgments sought to be enforced in them were en-.
tered by direction of single Justice Were the
decisions of the Common Pleas reversing such
judl lments to be set aside, no remedy would be
lefs. 1t is too late to appeal to the General Term
of the Marine Court, and the original appellant,
who has been guilty of no negligence, would thus
be deprived of the rights to which every citizen
is entitled, and compelled to abide by the hssty de-
csion Of man who stands in the lowest grade OF
judicial officers. We trust, then, that the good
sense and sound doctrine embodied in Judge Ingra-
hams judgment will commend itself TO all other
Courts before which the question may come.