The New York herald., 1875-07-15
IMPORTANT QUESTION OF JURIsDIC-
TTON

An important decision mas just been rendered
BY Judge McAdam, touching the jurisdiction OF
the Marine Court in actions upon bonds and
undertakings given In other courts. The case
arose in an action by the Bowery Savings Bank
vs. M. stadmullsr and Others presenting points
at issue as detailed below.
DECISION
The defendants executed an undertaking such
as ls REQUIRED oy sectlon 222 Of the code, upon
procuring an Injunction against the Bowery saw
lnRs Bank. The Injunction was obtained In the
Superior Court Of the city OF New York, ana upon
the discontinuanoe ofthe action by the piainln
reference was ordered by that Court to ascertain
the damages sustained by the bank by reason Of
made his report, which was confirmed in the Su.
perlor Court, and the Dlalntin thereapon brought
this action to recover the damages assessed by
the referee q Waits Pr, 125l and the defendants
upon the trial objected that this Court had no
81 the UPON sa0sss ssc
tion OF the act Of 1872 CHAP. 629l, which,
IN enumerating the cases OF which the
jurisdiction In "all actions upon surety bond or
undertaking taken In the said Court in any action
rlsdiction as TO the amount OF claim or recovery
thereon" Section OF the same act con tinues
cept as otherwise prescribed, declared ana en-
larRed by said act. Section limits the Jurlsdlc-
,na Ci 'ne ,Sse 70 tnefe Is notn,pg @ IN
yiously existing In the Court in actions upon
bonds, undertakings and other such like obllga-
tlons, and the only object or effect OF subdivision
3 OF section 8 In referring 70 such jurisdlc-
sion Was TO remove the restriction as to
the amount OF the recovery IN actions upon
bonds and undertakings taken in said court, 80
tnaL In t1at particular class or cases 'the limlta
tlon oil Jurisdiction as TO the amount OF claim or
recovery therelnp applicable to other cases should
not apply. The act OF 1913 (2 K. L., y. $751; s 1867
conferred upon the Marine Court Jurisdiction to
near, try and determine all actions OF deot and OF
covenant wherein the amounI claimed was within
the statutory limit. This old jurisdiction enlarged
as 10 amount OF recovery still remains in the
court. The old action OF debt was comprehensive
9nougn TO embrace the present case punlap's
embraced specialties OF all kinds. Besides mis-
subdivision oil section B. OF the act Of 1872 (supra)
IN regard TO jurisdiction, particularly enumerateS
AL actions arising upon CONTRACT, parol or under
toned. Under these various provisions / am
as loss to discover any room 10 doubt
the existence of the jurisdiction claimed.
l am aware that IN actions upon bail
otner that the courts in which they were prose-
cuted have IN some instances, 1or reasons dis
closed upon special motion, declined Jurisdiction
by disms5ng the proceedings and rem1tting the
parties Tor relief to the court In which the bail
bonds were given. These cases are confined,
however, to that peculiar class Of obligations for
the assigned reason thae eacn court has its own
rules OF practice and IS best able to judge OF what
terms should be granted to or imposed upon
defendant upon exonerattng his bail lBnrtls vs..
McCarty, Is Johns, 424; Matthews vs. Cook Is
Wend., SO OTIS vs. Wakeman, Hli, 604l, and these
cases hold that even IN regard TO bail bonds the
question cannot be raised pY plea or upon the
trial, and that the appropriate remedy Is by mo-
lion and that the objection does not go to the
Jurisdiction OF the court. The reasoning or the
court In those cases demonstrates their inapptca-
blity to the one under consideration.
me objection to the jurisdiction was properly
overruled and furnishes no ground for interfering
with the Judgment.
Judgment sustained.