New-York daily tribune., 1858-11-22

=
depeAen. the inhsrH, qu.S, Of the themselves
rn.s " 'h's To-, .Is,np: T. q q ~ re- - iss 49,.
On kr CONTRARY. in tss Of .pecs non-
s,eer~d ausnss be entire lu-sctoz 81 C~ats of egHJ
particular eN.rnc-s society II devised 1, LIS
iucr.ssed ard e-en p,,ae: 'hroase many ages msuly
,~ Which, thrush the ua,er'.y Of it. Por pes AID the
ss. rVuouseed certain 6x>d rule Of ap,Acs
lion By which sSes. corrfs were bound. ries-d
.qi,y usses TIE pscur aod ,Siraoreissry
stances e tie particular The CONDITIONS Of , under
which such rres would be given are OF ss' variety Aai
s.seuFi 70 redac them uny prncps or IL statement
could be acessie made "ho would festive TO Ionounce
,neh special ~seu sr~skins OF 'is usure AID quality
as,saors of esses In eaiJ special IA iheI sens s'ordas
10 she mo,t accurate aua precise use o. f' pr sisen
almost wtsout number Avery oeyhn, oAr .i o ioSad IA
the BIZ .~eisc Pf Of cousrc; OE "a s'e aad
par within the required By HE .sf--nent Eqa,y viii
s Lis rsn AID decree Performance In his asor IL
hiu fIor ,Sr r ,sre suh IS contirs-a occupsp valuable
improvements payH-Ijs OF money on me part Of
.spees IN s nature is euinsHiy Of taai character
What auth Ity have then er sayies TIA; The convention
con-ns uri.dcion county intended 10 exclude
exsty de'cnDea in The words of the san,l
five adoIt The conclusion that A which ~-e cog
LIae!e ey e n equity az eAr.aaed Y i1- as o
sPpee except the peculiar where the proceeding Vas rot
b, bill. but more summary reu.dy was provided Tae'e
they could have been easily enumerated 4 !, intended to
these however !, vel 70 observe were qite difficult and
any ether 10 the nole OF equity urd;
3
summary ur diet'"n of TIE Court Of exercised on
petition merely embraced corpors;ions their dissolution ~ Ger
the ri.ht rp.tra b, uIco the exercise Of their
Ia pceees. oftb rights of the greatest iupos,snee
pcaIed acg, ,e,, according 70 The constrc'
or ofthe Cnstu,n which sm enaeavorns 20 r!aie ;he
Court take jurisdiction Of uch ings while II
Of the simplest OF foreclosure No psscee can De
found OF io..ecsns mortgage .Pon pc tGon is'rAa OF o sia
therefore the Ss lou powrress tso the argument rns -
coler the u'dson do not believe this TO De reasonable
At; then special equity of which jurisdiction
be sye to the County Court To TINS question oue
consider uo, only tie fair import o the lanzusge u-cd
but ether udiia the constitution and
the employed in making those srraneeneut In tue "a
diciaIy .rcr provision IS made tor Supreme ,out win
jurisdiction IL Law aud rqty aud ~ he same article
W hnd clauses eot cernne M county coIi ana tn Jug
Now 'he woos general aid special are nsles,y .a N
precisely opposite The drs represented IN one o. these
other. IT, therefore the special jurisdiction oil tno county
Court resides IN the nature and quality OF ne cAses IN "nch
orow. hs, tho general ir.iicticu oil the Supreme
sides in those Of opposite nature aud a,S II tne word
The general limits 1t in another IL the sounty Jndge
BY b IN equity becsne Il not special case the supreme
Court entertain Il in summary proceeding because this
rs not general In short neither these tribunals
take any the jurisdiction which 10 given allowed to
the oter We are thus brought to conclusion which We know
false. We know the powers OF the Supreme Court
limited and must therefore reject the insrPeta'
tions " hieh lead to such coneluson
a,ed general. Plainly issays Ts csn
say which that Court review its jurisdiction
calico special The tera special and seri being used 70 de-
opposite qae. Of the dicteas when We are GER
mistaken that of other If know that the general
nature Jurisdiction Supreme Court has reference
then may also be certain that the special jurisdiction Of The
County Court such ds'netions II special be-
be especially Inferred by legislative act The
which may be exercised must have special definition
and nothing be taken whou, such definition or contrary
The question before think in il. substance and
nature involved in the recent decision of this Court IN DonDn
bI II N.
County Courts for the part osuds II was Therefore case
adoption the Cor sttuton IL true that par
ton could be had ?, PettNa aud paoessdns' 81 'aay a I
remedy by bill in equity va. as ancient r the time OF Queen
Elizabeth In this State It ws' modified oy ce.n sIsu'O
down the Constitution of 1896 and sir tnat time until the
partition hss now taken place. moAhed the suit In equity
by the statutes referred TO- In holding as hs Court d
suit for the partition Of lands within the county, it
5 that % cSsn.% O% %as ss" bs
By Of the Legislature within that jurisdction That
limit by an th.r di.tincton to b. Drawn
equity where remedy BY bill has oeen IN some degree od
ss S no ''ns nsrsnce b
ss's the n % and e O5 b. "a s ias % %
Convention the people had in view But were. We
mortgage had es's
Ss sa. e ws,ch GrF s. & NO
gushing between the Of partition already decided
For the reasons suggested am Of opinion .hs the L.s,.
confer the County Courts n suits for the
lands the county aud the sale o
morssged premises The Judgment OF the Supreme Court
should therefore be reversed and rendered Tor the de-
fendant demurrer with leave to trial the issue OF
fact.
suRROOATE'S COURT-Noy. 2o.-Belore Nj EoNAso G.
WEST.
WILLS ADMITTED TO PROBATE. /.
The wills % the following deceased persons have
been admitted TO probate during the present month:
hsnci, MsI'h Gers,t we,r.D, Ann Lssin' MaIl.ret f.
nah Stevenson. Jas Meshan, Anne Lswle Tamir Knapp,