Case Name: SARSFIELD a. VAN VAUGHNER
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1862-11
Citations: 15 Abb. Pr. 65
Docket Number: 
Parties: SARSFIELD a. VAN VAUGHNER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Abbott's Practice Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 65–66

Head Matter:
SARSFIELD a. VAN VAUGHNER.
Supreme Court, First District; General Term,
Nov., 1862.
Actions of Equitable Nature.—Amount in Controversy.— J urisdiction.—Costs.
The Constitution ot 1846 and the Code of Procedure have, by necessary implication, abolished every limitation in respect to the amount in controversy theretofore required to give jurisdiction in actions of an equitable nature, such as were formerly entertained only in the Court of Chancery.
No rule was revived, by the repeal (Laws of 1862, 859, ch. 460, § 39) of the provisions of 2 Eev. Stat., 173, § 37, in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery.
Appeal from an order dismissing the complaint.
This action, by Patrick Sarsfield against George W. Van Vaughner and Elizabeth Greer, was in the nature of a creditor’s bill. The judgment against Van Vaughner, on which this action was founded, was paid with the exception of a balance of $31.02. Mr. Justice Gierke dismissed the complaint on motion of defendants, on the ground that the matter in dispute did not exceed fifty dollars. The plaintiff appealed.
Robert H. Shannon, for the appellant.
Ira O. Miller, for the respondents, made substantially the-same points as on the motion below, 14 Abbotts’ Pr., 297.

Opinion:
By the Court.—Leonard, J.
The Constitution of 1846 and. the Code of Procedure have, by necessary implication, abolished every limitation in respect to the amount in controversy theretofore required to give jurisdiction in actions of an equitable nature, formerly entertained only in the Court of Chancery.. (Giles a. Lyon, 4 N. Y., 600; Cobine a. St. John, 12 How. Pr., 333; Coon a. Brook, 21 Barb., 546 ; Mallory a. Norton,. Ib., 424.)
No rule was revived by the repeal of section 37, article 2,. title 2, chapter 1, of the Revised Statutes, in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery (Laws of 1862, 859, ch. 460, § 39), because the Code had previously repealed that statute, and abolished every other rule limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The question of costs may be affected where the amount in controversy is under $50.
The order appealed from should be reversed, but without costs.
Ingraham, P. J., and Barnard, J., concurred.