Case Name: LEAKE v. HARTMAN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-03-09
Citations: 121 N.Y.S. 771
Docket Number: 
Parties: LEAKE v. HARTMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 121
Pages: 771–774

Head Matter:
LEAKE v. HARTMAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 9, 1910.)
1. Constitutional Law (§ 111 )—Vested Rights—Right op Appeal.
The right to appeal is not a vested right, and no constitutional right is invaded in taking it away.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 267-269; Dec. Dig. § 111. ]
2. Courts (§ 190 )—Municipal Court—Trial De Novo on Appeaj>-Statutory Provisions.
Statutory Construction Law (Laws 1892, c. 677) § 31, providing that an action pending immediately prior to the taking effect of the repeal of a statute under which it was commenced may be prosecuted and defended to final effect in the same manner as it might have been if such provision were not repealed, did not preserve the right to a new trial in the Oounty Court in an action begun in a Municipal Court prior to the taking effect of Laws 1907, c. 754, repealing the law giving a right to a new trial before a jury in such cases on appeal to the County Court, where the appeal to the County Court was not taken until after the law had taken effect.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 190; Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 103, 3379%.]
Williams and Eobson, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Monroe County Court.
Action by Stephen S. Leake against William Hartman. From an order of the County Court striking the case from the calendar for the trial of issues of fact with a jury, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, KRUSE, and ROBSON, JJ.
Carnahan, Adams, and Jameson & Pierce, for appellant.
J. W. Barrett, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § numbek in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
The action was originally commenced in the Municipal Court of the city of Rochester and an appeal taken to the County Court of Monroe county. After the action was commenced, and before the appeal was taken to the County Court, the right to a new trial was taken away'by chapter 754, Laws 1907. The facts relating to the action and the proceedings had are fully stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, and need not be referred to here in detail.
The appellant insists that he is entitled to a new trial in the County Court; and the question here is whether the provision in the statutory construction law which saves a right of action notwithstanding the repeal of a statute and permits an action pending immediately prior to the taking effect of the repeal to be prosecuted and defended to final effect in the same manner as it might be if such provision were not repealed saves the right to a new trial in the County Court. We are agreed, as I understand it, that the right of appeal itself is not a vested right, and no constitutional right is invaded in taking it away. Furthermore, the act of 1907 does not assume to take away the right of appeal, but only changes the method of reviewing the judgment on appeal. Our difference arises over the interpretation and effect of the saving provision in the statutory construction law to which I have referred. Undoubtedly causes of action are saved and the abatement of actions prevented by this provision of the statutory construction law, but I do not think it was intended thereby to preserve precisely the same procedure in prosecuting or defending an action to final effect as provided for before the repealing act became effective. Lazarus v. Metropolitan Street Ry. Co., 145 N. Y. 581, 40 N. E. 240. The repeal of the provision in the statute providing for a new trial upon an,appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court to the County Court was, a mere change in the procedure, as it seems to me, and the right to a new trial was not preserved by the saving provision of the statutory construction law.
It follows, therefore, that the order should be affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except WILLIAMS and ROBSON, JJ., who dissent in an opinion by WILLIAMS, J.