Case Name: Richard Wood et al., v. Hiram Short
Court: Delaware Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1888-02-01
Citations: 8 Houst. 112
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richard Wood et al., v. Hiram Short.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 112–119

Head Matter:
Richard Wood et al., v. Hiram Short.
Venue—Costs—Construction of Statute.
■The Act of April 15, 1885, (Laws of Delaware, Vol. 17, Chap. 623), providing tho whenever suit shall be brought in any civil action, except in actions where the venue is local, against any citizen of this State, in any other county than that wherein the defendant resides, the plaintiff shall not recover costs, &c., is constitutional and valid.
Comegys, C. J., dissents.
(February 1, 1888.)
On reservation from the Superior Court of Kent County, of a question as to the validity of Chap. 623, Vol. 17, Laws of Delaware. Act sustained.
The action was assumpsit upon a book account brought in Kent County. Defendant resided and was served in Sussex County. He made no appearance or defense and on the last day of the term plaintiff’s counsel, under the rules, moved for judgment with full costs, notwithstanding Chapter 623, Vol. 17, Laws of Delaware.
The court reserved the question of law raised by the motion, for the Court of Errors and Appeals. Heard before all the judges.
J. Alexander Fulton, for plaintiffs:
The Act of the General Assembly, passed April 15, 1885, Chap. 623, § 1, p. 926, Vol. 17, is unconstitutional, because the constitutional right cannot be diminished, circumscribed, retarded, impeded, obstructed, burdened, restrained or controlled by legislative enactment.
See Weston v. Charleston, 27 U. S. 2 Pet., 449 (7 L. ed. 481); Passenger Cases, 48 U. S. 7 How., 283 (12 L. ed. 702); Almy v. Cal., 65 U. S., 4 How., 169 (16 L. ed. 644); Com. v. Mann, 5 Watts & S., 403.
Thr Constitution invests the Supreme Court with a jurisdiction coextensive with the State, and the Legislature has no power to limit this jurisdiction or to prohibit the court from issuing its writs at any time to all parts of the State.
37 Pa., 237.
A general grant in the fundamental law cannot be restricted by legislation.
Story, Const., § 425.
The argument ab inconvenienti has no force. The answer to all this is, Ita lex seripta est.
Id. §'§ 425, 426.
Ho interpretation which impairs the power granted can be entertained.
Id. § 428.
In the interpretation of a power all the ordinary and appropriate means to execute it are to be deemed a part of the power • itself.
■Id. § 430.
As to limitation and incidental rights, see
Id. pp. 1649, 1650.
N. B. Smithers (by request of the court), for defendant.

Opinion:
Houston, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court orally, four of the five judges deciding in support of the statute.